Boone v. Gay
| Decision Date | 03 April 1925 |
| Citation | 104 So. 585,89 Fla. 347 |
| Parties | BOONE v. GAY et al. FARLEY et al. v. SAME. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Suit by Anna M. Boone against Thomas P. Gay and others, in which John C. Farley and others intervened. From an order denying complainant's motion to strike the whole of defendants' answer to the bill of complaint, complainant appeals. From an order overruling exceptions to several paragraphs and parts of the answer to the cross-bill by intervening defendants, John C. Farley and others interveners, appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Motion to strike answer or designated portions of answer in equity should not be granted, unless matter sought to be stricken is wholly irrelevant and insufficient as defense. A motion to strike an answer or designated portions of an answer in equity should not be granted, unless the matter sought to be stricken is wholly irrelevant and insufficient as a defense to the bill of complaint.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lee County; George W Whitehurst, judge.
Randell & Campbell, Cyrus Q. Stewart, and L. G Pope, all of Ft. Myers, for appellants.
F. A. Whitney, Walter O. Sheppard, and Frank C. Alderman, all of Ft. Myers, for appellees.
By stipulation two appeals in this case were consolidated. One is from an order denying a motion of complainants to strike the whole of the answer of defendants to the bill of complaint. The other is from an order overruling exceptions to several paragraphs and parts of the answer to the cross-bill by intervening defendants, by which exceptions it was attempted to eliminate practically the whole of the answer. Both rulings are assigned as error.
The bill and the cross-bill allege in substance the organization of a corporation, not for profit, but ostensibly for religious purposes; that such organization is a mere subterfuge under the pretense of which various enterprises commercial in their nature, not authorized to be conducted by a corporation not for profit, are engaged in by the members of the organization, wherefore such individuals are in law partners, and the properties owned and held by such organization, or by individual members for it, and the business enterprises so operated, are partnership properties; that the complainants and cross-complainants (or their ancestors) became members of such organization and paid into its treasury considerable amounts of money upon the agreement that all the properties so held were to be administered for the mutual benefit of all its members; that complainants (or their ancestors) were, without authority, removed or expelled from such organization without being compensated for the sums contributed or remunerated for the services rendered by them; that properties of considerable value have been acquired and accumulated by such organization, some of which has been, without authority and without consideration, conveyed by it to individual defendants, or one of them; and that the enterprises of the organization are being conducted by individual defendants, for their own benefit, to the injury and detriment of the complainants and cross-complainants. The prayer is that the property be decreed to be held in trust for the members of said alleged partnership for partition of such property, an accounting, recovery of amounts due for moneys paid into said common fund, and for services rendered, for attorney fees, and for general...
To continue reading
Request your trial