Guggenheimer & Co. v. Davidson

Decision Date27 November 1911
Citation56 So. 801,62 Fla. 490
PartiesGUGGENHEIMER & CO. v. DAVIDSON.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Columbia County; B. H. Palmer, Judge.

Suit by W. M. Davidson against Guggenheimer & Co., a corporation, and others. From an order denying a motion to strike the amended bill of complaint, the defendant named appeals. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Striking a pleading is a severe remedy, and should be resorted to only in cases palpably requiring it for the proper administration of justice.

A wide discretion is allowed trial courts in permitting amendments to pleadings, and where no settled rule of law or procedure is plainly violated, or a sound judicial discretion abused the action of the court in permitting amendments will not be disturbed.

If an amended bill of complaint is in effect the institution of a new and meterially different suit alleging a different cause of action, and is so palpably inconsistent with or repugnant to the original pleading that it is patent no decree can properly be entered on the amended bill, a motion to strike would not be an inappropriate remedy.

Where the allegations of an amended bill of complaint are wholly inconsistent with and repugnant to the allegations of the original bill, and attempt to assert an entirely different and inconsistent right of the plaintiff, and the amended bill does not state an equity in the plaintiff, an order denying a motion to strike the amended bill will be reversed.

COUNSEL

T. B. Ellis, Jr., for appellant.

R. H Chapman, for appellee.

OPINION

WHITFIELD, C.J.

The appellee, W. M. Davidson, brought a suit to foreclose a mortgage on real estate, making the appellant and D. M Davidson and wife and others defendants. The original bill of complaint alleges that the mortgage had been given by D. M Davidson and wife to secure the payment of a debt, and that an unpaid portion of the mortgage debt had been assigned to appellee. An answer by Guggenheimer & Co. sets up its right in the land to the exclusion of the complainant. The complainant then presented a petition to amend his bill of complaint 'by adding thereto various and sundry statements of facts which have come to the knowledge of your petitioner and his counsel since the filing of said bill and of the filing of the said answer thereto.' This petition was granted, and the complainant filed an amended bill of complaint, alleging in effect that the mortgage was given for the payment of the purchase price of the land mortgaged; that though the title to the land was taken in the name of his mother, the wife of D. M. Davidson, and the mortgage executed by his mother, the purchase was made by and for him; and that he had furnished all the money paid on the indebtedness, and that the unpaid notes had been assigned to him. It is not alleged that the defendant Guggenheimer & Co., who had answered, claiming title by purchase at an execution sale against D. M. Davidson, who was the owner of the land, took his execution deed with notice of complainant's alleged rights. The prayer is in effect to decree an equitable title in complainant. The defendant Guggenheimer & Co. moved to strike this amended bill of complaint, on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the original bill, and is beyond the scope of the petition granted for filing the amended bill. The motion to strike was denied, and the defendant appealed from this interlocutory order only.

Striking a plleading is a severe remedy, and should be resorted to only in cases palpably requiring it for the proper administration of justice. Rey v. Williams Phosphate Co., 55 Fla. 723, 46 So. 158.

A wide discretion is allowed ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • Tripp v. Wade
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • October 27, 1921
    ...... palpably requiring it for the proper administration of. justice. Burr v. Hull, 66 Fla. 20, 63 So. 300;. Guggenheimer & Co. v. Davidson, 62 Fla. 490, 56 So. 801; Southern Home Ins. Co. v. Putnal, 57 Fla. 199,. 49 So. 922; Ray v. Williams Phosphate Co., 55 Fla. ......
  • Randall v. Mickle
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • November 18, 1931
    ...... Ray v. Williams, 55 Fla. 723, 46 So. 158;. Southern Home Insurance Co. v. Putnal, 57 Fla. 199,. 49 So. 922; Guggenheimer & Co. v. Davidson, 62 Fla. 490, 56 So. 801; Burr v. Hull, 66 Fla. 20, 63 So. 300) and that a plea must be wholly irrelevant to authorize. ......
  • Williams v. Peninsular Grocery Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 3, 1917
    ...... pleas have been allowed by this court in various actions upon. promissory notes,' and cites Guggenheimer & Co. v. Davidson, 62 Fla. 490, 56 So. 801, and Burr v. Hull, 66 Fla. 20, 63 So. 300, to sustain the principle. that striking a plea should be ......
  • Palm Beach Estates v. Croker
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • August 31, 1932
    ...... stating in his order: 'In view of the decision of the. Supreme Court in this case, and upon authority of. Guggenheimer & Co. v. Davidson, 62 Fla. 490, 56 So. 801, I am of the opinion that the proposed amended bill is. neither timely nor proper at this state of the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT