Krouse v. Palmer
| Decision Date | 14 February 1938 |
| Citation | 179 So. 762,131 Fla. 444 |
| Parties | KROUSE et al. v. PALMER et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied March 29, 1938.
Suit in equity by Julia M. Palmer, joined by her husband and next friend, T. W. Palmer, and others to enforce a trust agreement and for other equitable relief, wherein Walter Krouse and others intervened. From an order dismissing interveners as parties defendant, interveners appeal.
Affirmed.
COUNSEL Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Paul D Barns, Judge.
Stapp Gourley, Ward & Ward, of Miami, Rogers & Morris, of Fort Lauderdale, and Weissbuch & Silverman, Price, Price & Hancock, and Redfearn & Ferrell, all of Miami, for appellants.
Marion E. Sibley, of Miami, for appellees.
Appellee Julia M. Palmer, as complainant, brought a suit in equity for 'her individual benefit and for the benefit of all other persons similarly situated,' against named defendants composing bondholders' protective committees and others to enforce a trust agreement, to appoint a receiver to wind up the trust, for accounting, and for other equitable relief.
Appellants moved to be permitted to intervene and be made parties defendant to the main suit. The chancellor entered his decree stating that the 'said parties shall henceforth stand as parties defendants to said cause pursuant to section 9 of the 1931 Chancery Act [Acts 1931, c. 14658].' The interveners were later in a second decree given permission to plead to the bill of complaint as they may be advised and accordingly moved to vacate the order appointing the receivers and to dismiss the bill of complaint.
The motion to dismiss was granted, but limited to the interveners, the chancellor's order reading in part as follows:
'* * * It appearing to the Court that said parties heretofore have been permitted to assert their rights in the subject matter of litigation by intervention, but said intervention was only permitted in subordination to and in recognition of the main proceeding, and said intervening defendants having now filed a motion to dismiss the main proceeding, the Court announced to Counsel for the respective parties that it construed the motion to dismiss the main proceedings as only a motion on the part of the said intervening Defendants to be dismissed as parties defendants to said cause, and further requested of counsel for the intervening defendants, in open court, whether it was desired of said defendants to be permitted to remain as parties defendant for the purpose of protecting their interest or right in the subject matter of the main proceeding in view of the court's construction of said motion to dismiss and counsel for the intervening defendants having announced in open court that it was their desire to stand upon the motion to dismiss the main proceedings, and to vacate the order appointing receivers. * * *'
From said order, this appeal was prosecuted. The questions raised by appellants grow out of the trial court's interpretation of the effect of the motion to dismiss and whether or not the bill of complaint was sufficient as a class suit.
The scope and effect of the motion to intervene is controlled by section 9 of the 1931 Chancery Act, Acts 1931, c. 14658, as follows:
'Anyone...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brugmann v. State
...that an intervener is bound by the record made at the time he intervenes and must take the suit as he finds it." Krouse v. Palmer, 131 Fla. 444, 447, 179 So. 762, 763 (1938). See also Riviera Club v. Belle Mead Dev. Corp., 141 Fla. 538, 543, 194 So. 783, 784-85 (1940); Nelson BullockCo. v. ......
-
Colucci v. Greenfield, 88-903
...from adjudicating the intervenor's claim. 2 Cf. Coast Cities Coaches, Inc. v. Dade County, 178 So.2d 703 (Fla.1965); Krouse v. Palmer, 131 Fla. 444, 179 So. 762 (Fla.1938). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this SCHWARTZ, C.J., concurs. HUBBART, Judge (dissenting......
-
Litvak v. Scylla Properties, LLC
...intervenors must take a lawsuit as they find it, subordinating their claims to those of the main parties. See, e.g., Krouse v. Palmer, 131 Fla. 444, 179 So. 762, 763 (1938) ("The law is settled that an intervener is bound by the record made at the time he intervenes and must take the suit a......
-
Faircloth v. Mr. Boston Distiller Corp.
...is engaged directly or indirectly in bottling spirituous liquors in any state other than the state of Florida.'2 See Krouse v. Palmer, 131 Fla. 444, 179 So. 762 (1938); Florida Gas Co. v. American Employers' Insurance Co., 218 So.2d 197 (3d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1969); and United States v. State ......