Reinhard v. Bliss
Decision Date | 01 February 1956 |
Citation | 85 So.2d 131 |
Parties | Henry REINHARD, Appellant, v. Harry K. BLISS et al., Appellees. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Joseph A. Wanick, Miami Beach, for appellant.
E. Paul Beatty, Miami, for appellee.
The appellant-plaintiff sued E. M. Weber, et al. to quiet title to lots 18, 19, and 20 of Commercial Buena Vista as per plat book 12, page 56, Dade County, and other lots. The appellee R. M. Weber answered and the chancellor entered a final decree dismissing the complaint as to R. M. Weber and plaintiff appealed and assigns the final decree as error. We conclude the decree should be affirmed.
Plaintiff deraigns his title from one Bechard who acquired a tax deed to these particular lots 'less the west 13 feet' but alleges that the mesne conveyances were by deeds describing the lots fully with the foregoing quoted language omitted. The bill alleges the lots to be vacant and unimproved, and that none of the defendants are in possession. The answer of Weber asserts title to the west 13 feet of said lots and denies that title is in the plaintiff to this portion.
After the time limited for taking of testimony had expired the defendant moved 'for the entry of a final decree herein upon plaintiff's bill and the defendant's answer' which we treat as a motion for decree on the pleadings authorized by the following rule:
The foregoing State rule was taken from Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., which latter rule has been interpreted and construed as follows:
As stated in 2 Moore's Federal Practice 2269 (2d ed.) concerning a motion for judgment on the pleadings: 'For the purposes of the motion, all well pleaded material allegations of the opposing party's pleadings are to be taken as true, and all allegations of the moving party which have been denied are taken as false.'
A Federal Court of Appeal held:
A test of the merits of defendant's motion heard wholly on the pleading under our rule 1.11(c) supra and under 12(c), F.R.Civ.P. is the same as a motion by a defendant for a summary judgment heard wholly on the pleadings either under Rule 56(b), F.R.Civ.P., or the State rule 1.36(b).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
King v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.
...efforts as a basis for obtaining judgment on the pleadings, a clearly inappropriate predicate under the law. See Reinhard v. Bliss, 85 So.2d 131 (Fla.1956); Trawick, Florida Practice & Procedure 10-9 (1987). We therefore reverse the trial court's ruling as to Count III and remand for furthe......
-
Beverly, In re
...which the trial court did not have a full and adequate opportunity to consider. Silver v. State, 188 So.2d 300 (Fla.1966); Reinhard v. Bliss, 85 So.2d 131 (Fla.1956). Although counsel for appellant objected to the testimony of the psychiatrist, the objection was made on the ground that appe......
-
Meyer v. Solomon
...his answer is of no avail to him, it then follows that merits of the motion is tested by the sufficiency of the complaint. Reinhard v. Bliss, Fla., 85 So.2d 131. The complaint is sufficient and the lower court did not err on this Appellants further contention is that when the defendants hav......
-
Stadler v. Cherry Hill Developers, Inc.
...So.2d 6, the court categorized the decree entered on defendant's motion as being authorized by Equity Rule 40. However, in Reinhard v. Bliss, Fla.1956, 85 So.2d 131, the Court categorized a similar proceeding as being authorized by Rule 1.11(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the success......