Lloyd v. Cooper Corp.
| Decision Date | 08 May 1931 |
| Parties | LLOYD v. COOPER CORPORATION. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Suit by Lila M. Lloyd against the Cooper Corporation. From a decree dismissing a second amended bill and from an order denying a motion to vacate the dismissal, complainant appeals.
Reversed.
See also, 99 Fla. 261, 126 So. 279; 134 So. 563. Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; F. M Robles, judge.
Edwin R. Dickenson, Burton G. Henson, and Whitaker Brothers, all of Tampa, for appellant.
C. H Martin, of Tampa, for appellee.
This appeal is from a decree dismissing a second amended bill of complaint and from an order denying a motion to vacate the dismissal. A demurrer had been sustained on April 4, 1929, to the second amended bill of complaint and 'the complainant allowed five days in which to file a third amended bill of complaint, and the defendant is allowed --- days to plead or demur' thereto. The relief sought was the cancellation of a sheriff's deed to real estate claimed to be the separate property of a married woman and levied upon to satisfy a judgment at law obtained in the civil court of record for Hillsborough county against the married woman and her husband upon a promissory note executed by the husband and wife in the state of Ohio.
'A married woman's notes, under the Constitution and laws of Florida, are void and afford no basis for a common-law suit.' Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Fisher et al., 58 Fla. 377, 50 So. 504.
A contract made and valid in one state may not be enforced in another state when it is contrary to the law and public policy of the latter state. See Union Trust Co. v. Grosman, 245 U.S. 412, 38 S.Ct. 147, 62 L.Ed. 368.
It appears that about 10:30 April 10, 1929, a third amended bill of complaint was filed, and about an hour later an order was filed dismissing the cause for failure to file an amended bill within the time allowed. It also appears that the files in the cause were in the possession of defendant's counsel for a day or two, that complainant's counsel was engrossed in the trial of other causes, and that a Sunday intervened during the five days allowed for filing a third amended bill.
As the second amended bill of complaint does not wholly fail to state an equity for appropriate relief, there was error in dismissing it; and there was also error in refusing to vacate the dismissal under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kerman's v. Strobhar
... ... Fla. 342; Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Fisher, ... 58 Fla. 377, 50 So. 504; Lloyd v. Cooper ... Corporation, 101 Fla. 533, 134 So. 562; Lloyd et al ... v. Cooper Corporation, 101 ... ...
-
Kellogg-citizens Nat. Bank of Green Bay, Wis. v. Felton
...is a free dealer under the statutes of Florida. See Lewis v. Yale, 4 Fla. 418; Blood v. Bunt, 97 Fla. 551, 121 So. 886; Lloyd v. Cooper Corp., 101 Fla. 533, 134 So. 562. See also Dollner v. Snow, 16 Fla. 'The rule of judicial comity has reference to the principle in accordance with which th......
-
Trafalgar Developers, Ltd. v. Geneva Inv. Ltd.
...the laws of the place of lex loci contractus where the same is contrary to the law and public policy of Florida. In Lloyd v. Cooper Corporation, 134 So. 562 (Fla.1931), this Court held that a contract made and valid in one state may not be enforced in another state when it is contrary to th......
- In re Smith, Bankruptcy No. 89-1190-8P7