Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Feagin

• Decision Date: 10 May 1927
• Citation: 93 Fla. 1015,113 So. 89
• Parties: ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. v. FEAGIN.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

113 So. 89

93 Fla. 1015

ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. v. FEAGIN.

Florida Supreme Court

May 10, 1927

En Banc.

Suit by L. O. Feagin against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company to quiet title and to restrain trespass. From a decree for the complainant, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Inconsistency of amended bill to quiet title and restrain trespass with original bill held not to prevent entering decree. Where an original bill of complaint seeks to quiet title and to restrain a trespass, and an amended bill of complaint seeks the same relief, the amended bill is not in effect the institution of a new and materially different suit, alleging a different cause of action, which is so palpably inconsistent with, or repugnant to, the original bill that no decree can properly be entered upon the amended bill.

Although it may be proper, requiring additional proof after entering decree pro confesso before entering final decree is not always necessary. In a chancery suit, while it may be proper it is not always necessary for the court to require additional proof to be presented after the entry of a decree pro confesso and before the entry of a final decree.

On valid decree pro confesso, defendant admits complaint's allegations of fact, and fair inferences and conclusions therefrom. Where a valid decree pro confesso is entered, the defendant is held to have admitted the allegations of fact and the fair inferences and conclusions of fact which may be drawn from the allegations contained in the bill of complaint.

Appellate court will not interfere with allowing amendments to pleadings in civil cause except for gross abuse of trial court's discretion; in suit to quiet title and to restrain trespass, permitting filing amended bill held not abuse of trial court's discretion. Necessarily, the trial court is clothed with broad discretion in the matter of allowing amendments to the pleadings in a civil cause, and unless there is a gross abuse of the discretion, this court will not interfere with its exercise.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Polk County; H. C Petteway, judge.

COUNSEL

Kelly, Sutton & Shaw, of Tampa, for appellant.

Lee J. Clyatt, of Bartow, for appellee.

OPINION

CHILLINGWORTH Circuit Judge.

This case was once before this court. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Feagin, 90 Fla. 62, 105 So. 141. Upon its return to the circuit court an amended bill was filed and a demurrer thereto overruled. The defendant, Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company failed to plead. A decree pro confesso and final decree were entered. The title of complainant was quieted, and the defendant enjoined and restrained from asserting or claiming any title to the land involved, except for a right of way easement.

The appellant, defendant in the court below, contends that the court erred in granting leave to file the amended bill and an amendment thereto and in entering the final decree based upon an unsworn amended bill of complaint which presented an inconsistent and materially different case from the one made out in the original bill.

The original bill and the amended bill each apparently sought to quiet the title of complainant as well as to restrain a trespass. The amended bill, as a bill to restrain a trespass, is still without equity, for the reason pointed out by this court in its previous opinion.

While there is surplusage in the amended bill, it contains the essential elements of a bill to quiet title, which the defendant...