70 Fla. 467 | Fla. | 1915
The bill of complaint filed June 9, 1913, herein as amended alleges that in 1883 Anna C. Woodbridge became the lawful owner in fee simple of Lots 1, 2, 6 and 7, of Block 7, Tier 4, as shown by the E. R. Trafford Map of Sanford, by conveyance from the Florida Land and Colonization Company, the then owner of the land; that on August 1, 1887, the said Anna C. Woodbridge, then a widow, conveyed the land to Albert G. Eaves with the understanding and agreement that said Albert G. Eaves was to hold the same for the use and in trust for the benefit of Richie Woodbridge, the complainant; that said deed of conveyance appeared to be an absolute conveyance to the said Albert G. Eaves, of the property aforesaid, but in truth and in fact at the time of the execution and delivery of said deed as aforesaid, it was understood and agreed by and between said AlbertG. Eaves, and the said AnnaC. Woodbridge, thatthe said property was tobeheldby the said Albert G. Eaves, for the useand benefitof youroratrix as aforesaid; it wasfurther understood and agreed by and between the said Anna C. Woodbridge and the said Albert G. Eaves, that the said Albert G. Eaves would make and execute a deed of trust to said Anna C. Woodbridge as Trustee for your oratrix, in and to all of the lands and tenements that were conveyed as aforesaid to the said Albert G. Eaves, and that on the first day of August, A. D. 1887, the said Albert G. Eaves, did make and execute a deed of convey
Yfour oratrix further says, that within the time prescribed in the final decree entered as aforesaid, in the foreclosure suit aforesaid, in which the said A. M. Thrasher was complainant and the said Anna C. Woodbridge and Calvin A. Poage were defendants, as agent for her mother, the said Anna C. Woodbridge, your oratrix tendered and offered the said A. M. Thrasher the entire sum of money decreed to be paid, together with the costs, interest and expenses, and attorneys’ fees in said suit, but that the said A. M. Thrasher, in violation of his duty in the premises, refused to accept the money, to examine said tender or to have anything whatever to do with it, stating at the time that in his opinion the property was too valuable for the claim to be settled for the amount of the decree ; that the saM sum of money hereinabove referred to and tendered as aforesaid, was true and lawful money of the United States of America, and a legal tender; that the said B. A. Howard, defendant herein, claims an interest in and to the lands hereinabove described, the extent and nature of which is not definitely known to your
Forasmuch therefore as your oratrix is without remedy save in a court of equity, your oratrix humbly prays as follows:
1. That a decree may be entered in this cause, where
2. That the legal title now held by the said A. M. Thrasher be decreed to be held in trust by the said A. M. Thrasher for the use and benefit of your oratrix.
3. That the said A. M. Thrasher be adjudged and decreed to be a trustee, holding in trust for the use and benefit of your oratrix the lands and tenements hereinabove described.
4. That the said A. M. Thrasher be compelled by a decree of this court to account to your oratrix for the rents, issues and profits arising out of and having been derived from the lands and tenements hereinabove described.
5. That the said A. Mi. Thrasher be compelled by a decree of this court to convey and, transfer by a good and sufficient deed of conveyance said lots 1 and 2, 6 and 7, of block 7, tier 4, in the City of Sanford, according to plat of E. R. Trafford, of said City of Sanford recorded in the Clerk’s office Orange County, Florida, and that in the event of failure of the said A. M. Thrasher to obey such order of the court in the premises, that the court by its decree divest the said A. M. Thrasher of the legal title in and to the lands and tenements aforesaid, and direct the Special Master appointed by this court to make, éxecute and deliver to your oratrix a deed of conveyance to the lands aforesaid, and to decree the title to said lands in your oratrix.
6. That the claim, title or interest which the said B. A. Howard claims or holds to the said lands and tenements or any part thereof, be decreed to be in your oratrix, and that the said B. A. Howard be compelled by a
7. That a Special Master in Chancery be appointed by this court to take the testimony in this cause, and to ascertain the amount due from the said A. M. Thrasher to your oratrix as rents, issues and profits, out of and from the lands aforesaid.
8. That your oratrix may have such other and further relief in the premises as shall be agreeable to equity, and shall seem meet and proper to your Honor.
May it please your Honor to grant unto your oratrix the State’s writ of subpoena under the .seal of this Honorable Court directed to the said A. M. Thrasher and B. A. Howard, defendants herein, commanding them on a certain day and under a certain penalty therein to be fixed, to be and appear before this Honorable Court, then and there full, true and direct answers make to complainant’s bill of complaint, but not under oath or affirmation, same being hereby expressly waived, and to stand to' and abide such order and decree in the premises as may be made by this honorable court. And your oratrix will ever pray, etc.
The demurrer of B. A. Howard is on the grounds:
“First: That the said complainant has not, in and by
Second: That said bill is brought in this honorable court in and for Seminole county (formerly a part of Orange county) in the State of Florida, and apparently filed in. said Seminole county, yet said bill is endorsed ‘filed June 9th, 1913, B. M. Robinson, clerk, by M. A. Howard, D. C.,’ said B. M. Robinson not being the clerk of Seminole county, Fla., but clerk of Orange county, Florida, of which the court will take judicial notice.
Third: That complainant’s bill does not set forth the interest of this defendant with sufficient certainty to inform the court what it is.
Fourth: That complainant’s bill does not show any sufficient reason for making this defendant a party thereto.
Fifth: That complainant’ bill and exhibits thereto attached do not make a case in equity sufficient to justify the relief therein prayed against this defendant.
Sixth: That complainant’s bill is uncertain, defective and improper.”
The demurrer of A. M. Thrasher is on the grounds:
“1. That there is no equity in the said bill.
2. That the said complainant has not in and by her said bill made or stated such a case as doth or ought to entitle her to any discovery or relief as thereby sought and prayed for from or against this defendant.
3. That the said bill states no facts on which the relief prayed for could be granted.
4. That, complainant’s bill and exhibits thereto attached do not make a case in equity sufficient to justify the relief therein prayed against this defendant.
6. That before the complainant would be entitled to any relief she would be obliged to show by her bill and exhibits that her equities were better than those of this defendant.
7. That complainant’s bill is in many respects uncertain, defective, evasive, irrelevant and improper.”
An order was entered sustaining the demurrers “on the ground of want of equity in the bill, and laches.” Complainants were allowed time to amend, but failing to amend, the bill of complaint was dismissed and the complainant appealed, assigning as error the order sustaining the demurrers.
In passing upon a demurrer to the whole bill in a suit in equity, every presumption is against the bill, but it is also true that such a demurrer operates as an admission that all the allegations in the bill which are well pleaded are true, and a demurrer to the whole bill should be overruled if the bill makes any case for equitable relief. City of Miami v. Shutts, 59 Fla. 462, 51 South. Rep. 929; Roberts v. Cypress Lake Naval Stores Co., 58 Fla. 514, 50 South. Rep. 678.
In effect the demurrers admit the allegations of the bill of complaint that on August 1, 1887, Anna C. Wood-bridge conveyed the land to Albert G. Eaves, to be held “for the use and benefit of” complainant, and that on the same day pursuant to an agreement to do SO', Eaves executed a conveyance of the lands to Anna C. Woodbridge as trustee for the complainant, but said lost deed of conveyance was not delivered to Anna C. Woodbridge “until
These and other allegations of the bill of complaint which are admitted by the demurrers, are sufficient allegations of an equity in the complainant; and it does not clearly appear on the face of the bill of complaint that the complainant is in such laches as to exclude her asserted rights from consideration by a court of equity. While the conduct of Anna C. Woodbridge in her dealing's with the property is unusual, yet it is alleged that the defendants had such notice of the dealing's as to preclude them from asserting rig'hts against the complainant on the showing here made.
The order overruling the demurrers was erroneous, and the decree dismissing the bill of complaint is reversed.
Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford and Ellis, JJ., concur.
Cockrell, J., absent on account of sickness.