Meier v. Johnston
| Citation | 110 Fla. 374,149 So. 185 |
| Parties | MEIER et al. v. JOHNSTON et al. |
| Decision Date | 01 June 1933 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Suit by A. Johnston, as Grand Chief Engineer of the Grand International Division of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, and others, against John H. Meier and another. From an interlocutory order striking a portion of defendants' answer, defendants appeal, and plaintiffs move to dismiss the appeal.
Motion to dismiss appeal denied, and order affirmed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Sarasota County; Paul C albritton, judge.
Williams & Dart, of Sarasota, for appellants.
John F Burket and Francis C. Dart, both of Sarasota, for appellees.
Upon motion to dismiss the appeal herein as frivolous, the court is of the opinion that the motion to dismiss should be denied, but that the interlocutory order appealed from should be affirmed on the authority of Grand Lodge, etc., v Stroud, 144 So. 324, wherein this court held that, where the Supreme Court, in determining motions to quash proceedings in error as frivolous, examines transcript and finds no reversible error, the judgment or decree appealed from will be affirmed, although the motion to dismiss as frivolous is adjudged not well taken.
In this case the defendants below, appellants here, by their answer suggest that the bill of complaint, which was for foreclosure of a mortgage, was defective for want of proper parties complainant. By special leave of court, the chancellor assigned the cause for argument as a motion upon that objection only. See section 17, chapter 14658, Acts of 1931, '1931 Chancery Act.' The motion to strike the challenged portion of the defendants' answer was granted. The appeal is from that order.
We find ample authority to support the order appealed from, is section 14 of the 1931 Chancery Act, which provides that:
'When the question is one of common or general interest to many persons constituting a class so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all before the court, one or more may sue or defend for the whole.'
In this case the suit is one for foreclosure of a mortgage brought by representatives of the Grand International Division of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers as complainants. The 'Brotherhood' is an unincorporated association of working men, whose membership is shown to be so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring all of the members thereof before the court. Consequently one or more, as representative of the whole membership, may sue for the whole under section 14 of the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frankel v. City of Miami Beach
...796 (1939); Allen v. Avondale Co., 135 Fla. 6, 185 So. 137 (1938); Olds v. Alvord, 133 Fla. 345, 183 So. 711 (1938); Meier v. Johnston, 110 Fla. 374, 149 So. 185 (1933); Pinellas County v. Town of Belleair Shore, 180 So.2d 510 (Fla.App.2d 1965); and Port Royal, Inc. v. Conboy, 154 So.2d 734......
-
T-r Indian River Orange Co. v. Keene
... ... section was applied by granting a separate hearing upon an ... objection for want of parties made in the answer in the case ... of Meier v. Johnston, 110 Fla. [374] 375, 149 So ... 185. In that case the lower court overruled the objection by ... sustaining plaintiff's motion to ... ...
-
Ross v. Gerung
...that in a proper case even a single party as representative of the whole membership may sue or defend for the whole. See Meier v. Johnston, 110 Fla. 374, 149 So. 185. See also Realty Trust Co. v. First Baptist Church of Haskell, Tex.Civ.App., 46 S.W.2d In the case at bar the evidence is to ......
-
Town of Davenport v. Hughes
...the interest of all to the satisfaction of the court, is permitted by Section 14 of the 1931 Chancery Act, supra. See Meier v. Johnston, 110 Fla. 374, 149 So. 185; Olds v. Alvord, 133 Fla. 345, 183 So. 711, Allen v. Avondale Co., 135 Fla. 6, 185 So. 137; Dunscombe v. Smith, 139 Fla. 497, 19......