Surfside Hotel v. W. E. Moorehead Co.
Decision Date | 27 January 1942 |
Citation | 149 Fla. 397,5 So.2d 857 |
Parties | SURFSIDE HOTEL, Inc., v. W. E. MOOOREHEAD CO. Inc., et al. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; C. E. Chillingworth, judge.
Beall & Farish, of West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Willard Utley, of West Palm Beach, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a final decree quieting title in the plaintiff.
The dispute is over a piece of land 3.06 feet by 30 feet in length.
Appellant contends the chancellor abused his discretion by allowing plaintiff to amend the bill after the taking of testimony. The amendment referred to the same property but changed the character of the description. The law has long been settled, that chancellors are allowed great latitude in allowing amendments and their action will not be set aside unless the abuse is clearly shown and that the offended party was prejudiced in some legal manner. In this instance the amendment was allowed to afford a proper basis for the evidence. Without such basis a decree could not have been entered. No one was surprised by the amendment. Both parties knew what property was being litigated. Both parties were given full opportunity to submit evidence and we find no abuse of discretion or resulting harm.
The remaining question in the case, questions the finding of the chancellor on both law and fact.
The finding was that:
We have examined the evidence and are of the opinion that the finding is substantially supported by same. The decree finds legal support in Kilgore v. Leary, 131 Fla. 715, 180 So. 35, and cases of this court there cited.
The decree is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
MGH Enterprises, Inc. v. Nunnally
...late hour, which had to be responded to by the defense. In the cases relied upon by the appellee, Surfside Hotel, Inc. v. W.E. Moorehead Company, Inc., 149 Fla. 397, 5 So.2d 857 (1942); Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Shulman, 481 So.2d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Dixie Farms, Inc. v. Tim......
-
Dixie Farms, Inc. v. Timmons, s. 74--1761
...not be surprised by the introduction of issues by evidence for which he has not been able to prepare. See Surfside Hotel, Inc. v. W. E. Moorehead Co., 1942,149 Fla. 397, 5 So.2d 857, and Penn Cork and Closures, Inc. v. Piggyback Shippers Association of Florida, Inc., Fla.App.1973, 281 So.2d......
- Pontius v. Pontius