Vance v. Bliss Properties
| Decision Date | 11 April 1933 |
| Citation | 149 So. 370,109 Fla. 388 |
| Parties | VANCE et al. v. BLISS PROPERTIES, Inc. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 1, 1933.
En Banc.
Suit by the Bliss Properties, Inc., and another against A. B. Vance and others. From the decree, defendants appeal.
Reversed and remanded, with directions. Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Paul D. Barns, Judge.
C. L. Brown, of Miami, for appellants.
Lyle D. Holcomb and Wilson Trammell, both of Miami, for appellees.
This case is before us on appeal from final decree which brings up for consideration the entire record.
The suit was for cancellation of a contract for the sale of real estate to decree null and void certain mortgages and other recorded instruments relating to such real estate, to cancel the records thereof, and to repossess the complainant of the real estate involved.
The defendants answered, praying affirmative relief, which answer was filed subject to demurrers. The demurrers were overruled.
From the final decree it appears that the chancellor considered the bill of complaint as one to foreclose a vendor's lien on the property involved. Such decree would be warranted on the evidence if there existed a basis for it in the pleadings.
The pleadings fail to present the issue which is adjudicated by the decree.
The record discloses no other reversible error.
For the reasons stated, the decree is reversed and the cause remanded to the circuit court with directions that the same be returned to the rolls for further amendment of the pleadings, or additional pleadings, under such terms and conditions as may be awarded by the chancellor. It is so ordered.
Reversed, with directions.
I think that in a proper case the conclusions of the master were approximately correct, at least relief along that line would be appropriate, but I see no reason for discussing this matter. The case made by the bill was one to declare a forfeiture under the contract and declare it to be discharged and canceled and to invalidate certain other deeds. The relief granted was inappropriate to the case made in the bill.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henderson v. Antonacci
...Pensacola & Georgia R. R. Co. v. Spratt, 12 Fla. 26, 91 Am.Dec. 747; Briles v. Bradford, 54 Fla. 501, 44 So. 937; Vance v. Bliss Properties, Inc., 109 Fla. 388, 149 So. 370. There are many sound reasons behind this rule. Not the least of such reasons is the fact that gratuitous rulings by a......
-
Trushin v. State
...any item that may affect the case. See Whitted; Miami Gardens, Inc. v. Conway, 102 So.2d 622 (Fla.1958); Vance v. Bliss Properties, Inc., 109 Fla. 388, 149 So. 370 (1933). Questions two through four present a different problem because the district court ruled on those issues and certified t......
-
Alexander v. State
...See Whitted [v. State, 362 So.2d 668 (Fla.1978) ]; Miami Gardens, Inc. v. Conway, 102 So.2d 622 (Fla.1958); Vance v. Bliss Properties, Inc., 109 Fla. 388, 149 So. 370 (1933). Id. at 1129-30. It should be noted that a distinction is drawn between facial unconstitutionality of the statute and......
-
Trumbull Chevrolet Sales Co. v. Motor Vehicle Com'r
...Pensacola & Georgia R. R. Co. v. Spratt, 12 Fla. 26, 91 Am.Dec. 747; Briles v. Bradford, 54 Fla. 501, 44 So. 937; Vance v. Bliss Properties, Inc., 109 Fla. 388, 149 So. 370. There are many sound reasons behind this rule. Not the least of such reasons is the fact that gratuitous rulings by a......