Murrell v. Peterson

• Decision Date: 16 March 1909
• Citation: 49 So. 31,57 Fla. 480
• Parties: MURRELL v. PETERSON et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

49 So. 31

57 Fla. 480

MURRELL
v.
PETERSON et al.

Florida Supreme Court

March 16, 1909

In Banc. Appeal from Circuit Court, Hernando County; William S. Bullock, Judge.

Bill by George B. Murrell against William R. Peterson and another. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the bill, complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

In a suit in equity, as well as in an action at law, every pleading, when properly attacked, is to be construed most strongly against the pleader thereof, so, in passing upon a demurrer to a bill in equity, every presumption is against the bill.

Where there are contradictory or inconsistent allegations in a bill, its equity will be tested by the weaker, rather than by the stronger, allegations.

A court of equity cannot grant relief when the complainant's own showing in his bill demonstrates a want of equity in his prayer.

A correct ruling of the trial court will not be disturbed by an appeal court because of erroneous or wrong reasons which may have been given therefor, as it is with the ruling itself, and not with the reasons therefor, with which an appellate court is concerned. If a demurrer to a bill in equity should have been sustained on any of the grounds thereof, it is wholly immaterial that the trial court may have given a wrong reason for a proper ruling.

Where a bill in equity is filed against two or more defendants seeking an accounting, the payment of damages which the acts of the defendants may have occasioned the complainant, the partition of lands, and for general relief, even if it be assumed that all such matters may be properly united in the same suit and relief had as to them, if it plainly appears from the allegations of the bill that the complainant had parted with all his interest in the lands, out of which the controversy arose, such complainant has no locus standi in a forum of equity, and the bill is demurrable.

Where it plainly appears from the allegations of a bill in equity that the complainant has been guilty of laches in filing the same and in seeking relief, and no satisfactory reason is given for the same, such bill is demurrable.

While the rule as to 'multifariousness' may, generally speaking, be said to be 'one very much of convenience,' and while there may not be 'any positive inflexible rule as to what, in the sense of a court of equity, constitutes multifariousness, which is fatal to a suit on demurrer,' yet, broadly speaking, 'multifariousness' in a bill may be defined as 'the improperly joining in one bill distinct and independent matters, and thereby confounding them.' There are at least two general and distinct forms of multifariousness, one consisting in uniting in the same bill distinct and disconnected subjects, matters, or causes; the other consisting in joining in the same suit, either as complainants or defendants, parties who are without a common interest in the subject of the litigation and have no connection with each other. Whenever multifariousness plainly appears in a bill, it is ground for demurrer.

In order to maintain a bill for partition, the complainant must show title or a right to partition. Where, in a partition proceeding, it appears that the complainant has no title to the lands sought to be partitioned, the bill should be dismissed, even though the complainant may have an equitable interest in the land which may be enforced in proper proceedings.

COUNSEL [57 Fla. 481] Davant & Davant, for appellant.

H. L. Anderson and H. M. Hampton, for appellees.

OPINION

SHACKLEFORD, J.

On the 23d day of July, 1908, the appellant, as complainant, filed his bill in chancery in the circuit court for Hernando county against the appellees, as defendants, which, omitting the purely formal parts, is as follows:

'George B. Murrell, of Polk county, in the said state, the complainant, brings this his bill against William R Peterson, of said Hernando county, and the Peterson-McNeill Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Florida, with a principal place of business in Hernando county, in the said state, and thereupon the complainant complains and says: That the complainant and the defendant William R. Peterson, upon parol agreement between them, bought in equal interests the E. 1/2 of the N.E. 1/4 of section 22, the N.W. 1/4 and the W. 1/2 of the S.E. 1/4 and the S.W. 1/4 of section 23, and the W. 1/2 of the N.E. 1/4 and the N.W. 1/4 of section 26 of township 23 S. of range 20, in the said Hernando county situate, and containing 720 acres more or less, upon said agreement [49 So. 32] and in mutual trust and confidence, and for reasons of personal convenience to them as tenants in common understood and agreed upon between them, caused the title deed therefor to be executed to and in the name of the said defendant, William R. Peterson, as appears by the said title deed executed by R. H. Moore and his wife and John L. Culver and his wife the 24th day of April, A. D. 1903, appearing of record in Hernando county aforesaid at page 631, in Book 14, from the 13th day of July, 1903. The complainant and the said defendant William R. Peterson each [57 Fla. 483] paid $1,440 of the purchase money, and did agree that the complainant should first enter and take possession of the said lands for use of the pine timber thereon in the prosecution of complainant's turpentine business, and the said defendant to have thereafter the right of possession of the said timber for his sawmill business.

...