Williams v. Robineau

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtTERRELL, Justice.
Citation124 Fla. 422,168 So. 644
Decision Date28 May 1936
PartiesWILLIAMS et al. v. ROBINEAU et al.

168 So. 644

124 Fla. 422

WILLIAMS et al.
v.
ROBINEAU et al.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

May 28, 1936


Rehearing Denied June 26, 1936.

Suit to foreclose a mortgage by S. P. Robineau, as trustee, and others, against C. H. Williams and others, wherein C. H. Williams and J. M. Williams, as partners doing business under the firm name and style of Williams Brothers, filed a cross-bill for foreclosure of tax deeds. From an order denying cross-complainants' motion for leave to amend the cross-bill, cross-complainants appeal.

Reversed. [168 So. 645] [124 Fla. 423] Appeal from Circuit Court, Gilchrist County; H. L. Sebring, judge.

COUNSEL

J. C. Adkins and Winston E. Arnow, both of Gainesville, for appellants.

M. S. McGregor, of De Land, for appellees.

OPINION

TERRELL, Justice.

S. P. Robineau as trustee filed his bill of complaint in Gilchrist county to foreclose a mortgage, C. H. Williams and Ruth Williams, his wife, J. M. Williams and Rosa L. Williams, his wife, Consolidated Naval Stores Company, and others, were named as parties defendant. C. H. and J. M. Williams, as partners under the firm name of Williams Brothers, filed their answer and cross-bill in which they resist the foreclosure by alleging their ownership of tax deeds covering a portion of the lands described in the mortgage. The cross-bill prays for foreclusure of their tax deeds under chapter 14572, Acts of 1929, Ex.Sess., Laws of Florida.

S. P. Robineau as trustee answered the cross-bill, in which he admitted the tax deeds and the priority of the [124 Fla. 424] liens created by them, but resisted their foreclosure on the ground that the lien so created had been legally discharged and exhausted by rents and profits taken from the lands by Williams Brothers during a period of years they were worked and used by them (Williams Brothers) for turpentine and timber purposes.

After Robineau filed his answer to the cross-bill, Williams Brothers in due course moved to be permitted to amend the latter by striking that portion praying for foreclosure of it under chapter 14572, Acts of 1929, Ex.Sess. This motion was denied, a receiver was appointed, and an examiner was designated to take and report the testimony. Williams Brothers then renewed their motion to be permitted to amend their cross-bill. This motion was denied, and Williams Brothers prosecuted the instant appeal.

Did the chancellor commit error in refusing to permit Williams Brothers to amend their answer and cross-bill to Robineau's bill to foreclose, is the sole question we are called on to answer.

Appellees contend that this question should be answered in the negative for the reason that when Williams Brothers filed the cross-bill and prayed foreclosure of their tax deeds under chapter 14572, Acts of 1929, Ex.Sess., they elected between inconsistent remedies and are now bound by their election. They rely on Groover v. Stafford, 107 Fla. 410, 145 So. 252; Campbell v. Kauffman Milling Co., 42 Fla. 328, 29 So. 435; Ziegler v. Brown, 112 Fla. 421, 150 So. 608; McCormick v. Bodeker, 119 Fla. 20, 160 So. 483; and Intertype Corporation v. Pulver (D.C.) 2 F.Supp. 4, to support their contention.

Appellants contend, on the other hand, that this question should be answered in the affirmative because of the liberal provision for amendment contained in chapter 14658, [124 Fla. 425] Acts of 1931, § 26, section 4902 (7), Compiled General Laws of 1927, 1934 Supplement, better known as the 1931 Chancery Act. Appellants also contend that what they had in this case was a choice between substantive rights rather than a choice between inconsistent adjective remedies, [168 So. 646] and being so the law governing the latter has no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 practice notes
  • Vogel v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 28, 1936
    ...drunken, lascivious debauchery, but the jury found no extenuating fact in those circumstances, and we are unable to say that it existed. [124 Fla. 422] Other assignments of error have been examined, and we find no merit in them. The judgment should be affirmed. TERRELL, J., agrees to the co......
  • Herring v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co., No. 398
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • June 13, 1974
    ...right, and all aid in the accomplishment of that end, without conflicting with each other.' (Emphasis supplied) In Williams v. Robineau, 124 Fla. 422, 168 So. 644 (1936), the Supreme Court of Florida said, at '. . . If the remedies are several and consistent, the election of one does not op......
  • Bavelis v. Doukas, Case No. 2:17-CV-00327
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • January 21, 2021
    ...action should not later be allowed to avail himself of an incompatible course." Barbe , 505 So.2d at 1332 (citing Williams v. Robineau , 124 Fla. 422, 168 So. 644, 646 (1936) ). The election of remedies doctrine aims to prevent a "double recovery for the same wrong." Id. (citing United Stat......
  • Bavelis v. Doukas, Case No. 19-3051
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • October 19, 2020
    ...of remedies doctrine] does not preclude the use or pursuit of consistent remedies in proper circumstances."); Williams v. Robineau, 168 So. 644, 646 (Fla. 1936) ("If the remedies are several and consistent, the election of one does not operate to waive the others."); see also De Pantosa Sae......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
47 cases
  • Vogel v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 28, 1936
    ...drunken, lascivious debauchery, but the jury found no extenuating fact in those circumstances, and we are unable to say that it existed. [124 Fla. 422] Other assignments of error have been examined, and we find no merit in them. The judgment should be affirmed. TERRELL, J., agrees to the co......
  • Herring v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co., No. 398
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • June 13, 1974
    ...right, and all aid in the accomplishment of that end, without conflicting with each other.' (Emphasis supplied) In Williams v. Robineau, 124 Fla. 422, 168 So. 644 (1936), the Supreme Court of Florida said, at '. . . If the remedies are several and consistent, the election of one does not op......
  • Bavelis v. Doukas, Case No. 2:17-CV-00327
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • January 21, 2021
    ...action should not later be allowed to avail himself of an incompatible course." Barbe , 505 So.2d at 1332 (citing Williams v. Robineau , 124 Fla. 422, 168 So. 644, 646 (1936) ). The election of remedies doctrine aims to prevent a "double recovery for the same wrong." Id. (citing United Stat......
  • Bavelis v. Doukas, Case No. 19-3051
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • October 19, 2020
    ...of remedies doctrine] does not preclude the use or pursuit of consistent remedies in proper circumstances."); Williams v. Robineau, 168 So. 644, 646 (Fla. 1936) ("If the remedies are several and consistent, the election of one does not operate to waive the others."); see also De Pantosa Sae......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT