Schonfeld v. Smith

• Decision Date: 16 October 1936
• Citation: 170 So. 129,125 Fla. 462
• Parties: SCHONFELD v. SMITH et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

170 So. 129

125 Fla. 462

SCHONFELD v. SMITH et al.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

October 16, 1936

Suit by Miriam Smith, a married woman whose husband has deserted her for more than six months, by Laura Knowles, her next friend, and others against Joseph Schonfeld, sometimes known as Joe Schonfeld. From an order denying a motion to dismiss the bill of complaint, defendant appeals.

Affirmed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; H. F. Atkinson, judge.

COUNSEL

J. N. Morris, Louis Heiman, and Abe Schonfeld, all of Miami, for appellant.

Boone & Boone and Effie Knowles, all of Miami, for appellees.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The appeal in this case is from an order denying motion to dismiss the bill of complaint.

We can see no good purpose to be served by promulgating an opinion in disposing of the appeal. It is sufficient to say that, although the complainant may not have been entitled under the allegations of the bill to the relief specifically prayed, section 28 of the 1931 Chancery Practice Act (Acts 1931, c. 14658) provides:

'Every bill of complaint shall be considered to pray for general relief.'

For application of this provision, see McCarthy's Annotated Florida Chancery Act (2d Ed.) 75.

It appears to be well settled that no objection to the prayer of the bill of complaint may be raised by motion to dismiss because, if the bill states a case entitling the plaintiff to any relief under any special prayer or under the implied prayer for general relief, it will not be dismissed. See Phifer v. Abbott, 73 Fla. 402, 74 So. 488; Florida Southern R. Co. v. Hill, 40 Fla. 1, 23 So. 566, 74 Am.St.Rep. 124; City of Orlando v. Equitable Bldg., etc., Ass'n, 45 Fla. 507, 33 So. 986; Brokaw v. McDougall, 20 Fla. 212; Isleworth Grove Co. v. Orange County, 79 Fla. 208, 84 So. 83; Raulerson v. Peeples, 79 Fla. 367, 84 So. 370; South Florida Citrus Land Co. v. Walden, 59 Fla. 606, 51 So. 554; White Engineering Co. v. People's State Bank, 81 Fla. 35, 87 So. 753; Hewitt v. Punta Gorda State Bank, 108 Fla. 39, 145 So. 883.

The allegations of the bill in this case are amply sufficient to warrant equitable relief.

Therefore the order appealed from is affirmed.

ELLIS, P.J., and TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.

WHITFIELD, C.J., and BROWN and DAVIS, JJ., concur in the opinion and judgment.