Leeds v. C. C. Chemical Corp.
| Decision Date | 24 July 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--491,73--491 |
| Citation | 280 So.2d 718 |
| Parties | Edward LEEDS, Appellant, v. C. C. CHEMICAL CORP., a Delaware corporation, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Ginsberg & Goldman, North Miami Beach, for appellant.
Frates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Proenza & Richman and Christian D. Searcy, Miami, Michael A. Pelle, North Miami Beach, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
The appellant Edward Leeds was one of the defendants below. The appellee C. C. Chemical Corporation, herein referred to as Chemical, filed an action against Edward Leeds, Michael Leeds, Rhea Leeds and Mercury Chemical Co., Inc., herein referred to as Mercury.
The amended complaint contained six counts. The first count alleged a written agreement between Mercury and Pollution Control Industries, Inc., herein referred to as PCI, for sale of the assets and business of the former to PCI, with provision for the transfer to be made to a corporation to be formed by PCI: that the corporation (Chemical) was formed and transfer was made; that it was agreed the transaction would be rescinded if a certain volume of business was not done in the first year; that the goal was not attained; that the defendants had appropriated to themselves the assets of the plaintiff corporation, rendering it unable to make full restitution on rescission; and that it had surrendered its inventory and the business to the defendants. The plaintiff prayed for a declaration that rescission had been made; for defendants to be required to return to plaintiff certain corporate stock; and for damages. In additional counts the defendants were charged with fraud and misrepresentation in the transaction, and damages were sought against the defendant Edward Leeds upon charging him with breach of a contract of employment with the plaintiff.
The defendant Mercury (seller) filed an answer to the amended complaint. The answer contained certain affirmative defenses, and included therein was a counterclaim by Mercury against the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an answer to Mercury's counterclaim, and also filed a motion to strike the counterclaim. That motion to strike has not been disposed of. Later the plaintiff filed an answer to affirmative defenses contained in the answer of Mercury, and also filed a motion to strike certain such affirmative defenses from Mercury's answer. That motion has not been disposed of.
Answers also were filed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kuvin v. Keller Ladders, Inc.
...Inc., 492 So.2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Hodge v. Kidder Peabody & Co., 473 So.2d 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Leeds v. C.C. Chemical Corp., 280 So.2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). In fact, on August 5, 1999, the trial date was continued to October 18, 1999, and the trial did not start even then beca......
-
Alech v. General Ins. Co., 85-2513
...and 28 of the complaint] contained in the defendant's answer, and, accordingly, the case was not at issue. See Leeds v. C.C. Chemical Corp., 280 So.2d 718, 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) ("The determinative question is whether a cause is at issue where, with the last responsive pleading required un......
-
Hodge v. Kidder Peabody & Co., Inc., 85-1807
...be the equally obvious remedy. Petitioner cites as authority for our assertion of jurisdiction the decision in Leeds v. C.C. Chemical Corporation, 280 So.2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), a similar case factually but one in which the appellate court was considering an appeal from the order in ques......
-
Chapter 13-2 Setting Trials
...provided, jury trial is timely demanded.").[6] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(b).[7] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(a).[8] Leeds v. C.C. Chemical Corp., 280 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).[9] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(a).[10] Charter Review Comm'n of Orange County v. Scott, 627 So. 2d 520, 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)......
-
Chapter 13-2 Setting Trials
...provided, jury trial is timely demanded.").[6] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(b).[7] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(a).[8] Leeds v. C.C. Chemical Corp., 280 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).[9] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440(a).[10] Charter Review Comm'n of Orange County v. Scott, 627 So. 2d 520, 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)......