Crandall v. Owen
Mamie W. Crandall, a Widow, and R. P. Clark, Appellants, v. Elizabeth T. Owen, Appellee
Opinion of the Court
Terrell, C. J.
The bill of complaint herein prays that a trust be decreed on certain lands in. Dade County, more specifically therein described and that an accounting be had between appellee as complainant below and appellants as defendants below. A demurrer to the bill was overruled and appeal was taken from that order.
The sole question raised by the demurrer is that the bill is multifarious. • We think the bill was amenable to the assault made on it. It is shown that it involved two separate and independent transactions in which the parties were in part different and in which the subject matter was entirely different. This court has frequently expressed itself on the question of multifariousness. We do not see that further discussion of that subject would serve any useful purpose. Murrell v. Peterson, 57 Fla. 480 , 49 So. R. 31; Farrell v. Forest Investment Co., 73 Fla. 191 , 74 So. R. 216; Craft v. *199 Craft, 74 Fla. 262 , 76 So. R. 772; Arcadia Mercantile Co. v. Branning, 59 Fla. 428 , 52 So. R. 588.
The decree below is therefore reversed.
Reversed.
Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Buford, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.