City of Jacksonville v. Massey Business College
City of Jacksonville v. Massey Business College
Opinion of the Court
(after stating the facts).- — Although the point is not expressly presented or argued in this court, an examination of the bill of complaint discloses that it is without equity, complainant having ample remedy at law, all the property mentioned therein being personal property. The case of Baldwin v. Tucker, 16 Fla. 258, is directly in point. Also see Town of Orange City v. Thayer, 15 Fla. 502, 34 South. Rep. 573, and numerous authorities there cited.
The bill having failed to present a case where the relief prayed is authorized and, moreover, being entirely without equity, it is the duty of the appellate court to notice the defect, although it has been ignored in the pleadings, assignments of error and arguments. Stapylton v. Neely, 44 Fla. 212, 32 South. Rep. 868; Richardson v. Gilbert, 21 Fla. 544, text 555, and authorities there cited; Freeman v.
It is incumbent upon a complainant to allege in his bill every fact, clearly and definitely, that is necessary to entitle him to relief; and if he omits essential facts therefrom, or states such facts therein as show that he is not entitled to relief in a court of-equity, he must suffer the consequences of his so doing. Johnson v. McKinnon 45 Fla. 338, 34 South. Rep. 272; Stockton v. National Bank of Jacksonville, 45 Fla. 590, 34 South. Rep. 897; Pinney v. Pinney, 46 Fla. 559, 35 South. Rep. 95. Also see Parker v. Dekle, 46 Fla. 452, 35 South. Rep. 4; Jordan v. Petty, 5 Fla. 326, text 332; Humphreys v. Atlantic Milling Co., 98 Mo. 542, text 551, 10 S. W. Rep. 140; Clark v. Bayer, 32 Ohio St. 299, text 304, S. C. 30 Amer. Rep. 593.
From what has been said -it follows that the decree must be reversed, with directions to dismiss the bill; the appellee to pay the costs of this appeal.
Hocker, Cockrell, Whitfield and Carter, JJ., concur.
Taylor, C. J., absent on account of sickness.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- The City of Jacksonville, a Municipal Corporation v. The Massey Business College, a Corporation
- Cited By
- 17 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. It is incumbent upon a complainant to allege in his bill every fact, clearly and definitely, that is necessary to entitle him to relief, and if he omits essential facts therefrom, or states such facts therein as show that he is not entitled to relief in a court of equity, he must suffer the consequences of his so doing. 2. Where a bill in equity wholly fails to state a cause of action or wholly fails to present a case where the relief prayed 'is authorized, it is the duty of an appellate court to notice the defect, although it has been ignored in the pleadings, assignments of error and arguments. 3. Where it appears upon the face of the bill that there is no equity in it, or that there is a plain and adequate remedy at law, and that a court of equity is wholly incompetent to grant the relief sought, the case should be remanded by the appellate court with directions to dismiss the bill, even though no such objection was made in the pleadings, presented in the trial court or argued before the appellate court. 4. A court of equity will not entertain a bill for injunction against a municipal corporation which threatens to enforce the payment of taxes assessed by said municipal corporation upon personal property by the seizure and sale thereof, without lawful authority, as such seizure would be a mere trespass remediable in a court of law.