Welgoss v. End

Welgoss v. End, 112 So. 2d 390 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1959)

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided: June 4, 1959
Docket: No. 58-741
Judges: Horton
Citations: 112 So. 2d 390

Cited by 12

Opinion

112 So.2d 390 (1959)

Eleanor WELGOSS, Appellant,

Henry END, Appellee.

No. 58-741.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

June 4, 1959. Rehearing Denied June 17, 1959.

Ben Cohen and Montague Rosenberg, Miami Beach, for appellant.

John B. Orr, Jr., and Lawrence L. Lazar, Miami Beach, for appellee.

HORTON, Judge.

This chancery action was filed on June 3, 1958. On August 6th, the chancellor entered an order setting the cause for trial before a jury during the week of September 29. Due to circumstances not disclosed in the record, the trial was re-set for October 9th. During the afternoon of October 8th, plaintiff wired her counsel from Beverly Hills, California, notifying him that she was ill and requesting a 90-day continuance. Before the impaneling of a jury, plaintiff's counsel requested a voluntary non-suit and defendant moved for dismissal with prejudice. The chancellor denied the former and granted the latter, whereupon the plaintiff appealed.

Although a jury trial was authorized in this chancery action, the provisions of § 54.09, Fla. Stat., F.S.A., relative *391 to the right of a plaintiff to take a non-suit before the jury retires, have been applied generally in law actions. However, assuming the provisions of § 54.09, supra, could apply to these proceedings, the appellant does not come within the provisions thereof for the reason that the cause was not "on trial".

A plaintiff in a chancery proceeding does not have an absolute right to a dismissal of his action after the filing of the defendant's answer or motion for summary judgment, whichever comes first. Rule 1.35(a) (1) (i), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A. We have carefully reviewed the record in this cause and fail to find wherein the chancellor abused his discretion in dismissing the cause with prejudice. See 10 Fla.Jur., Dismissal, etc., § 9.

Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed.

CARROLL, CHAS., C.J., and PEARSON, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts12

Relies on it most ⓘ

Dobson v. Crews164 So. 2d 252 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)
Ruis v. Halloway139 So. 2d 745 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1962)
Welgoss v. End252 Cal. App. 2d 982 (1967)
RC 17 CORP. v. Korenblit207 So. 2d 296 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)
Thoman v. Ashley170 So. 2d 332 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964) · Dissent
Robb v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad117 So. 2d 534 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1960)

Most recent

Leeds v. Hughes345 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)
Horwitz v. End245 So. 2d 117 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971)
RC 17 CORP. v. Korenblit207 So. 2d 296 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)
Welgoss v. End252 Cal. App. 2d 982 (1967)
Thoman v. Ashley170 So. 2d 332 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964) · Dissent
Dobson v. Crews164 So. 2d 252 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list