Skip to main content
· 6/15/1910

Erwin v. Dekle

Citations

  • 60 Fla. 56

Syllabus

<p>1. Where in an action of ejectment an agreement is entered into between the parties that the plaintiff shall dismiss the suit as to a parcel of land not described in the declaration, such an agreement constitutes no estoppel which prevents the defendant in the first suit from claiming the said land in a second suit, wherein he is plaintiff and plaintiff in the first suit, is the defendant.</p> <p>2. As a general rule an action of ejectment cannot be supported resting solely on a mere equitable estoppel in pais.</p> <p>3. Every fact essential to an estoppel in pais must be clearly and satisfactorily proved.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • no good cause when movant did not depose physicians, obtain copies of medical records, and failed to articulate why the further examination would be relevant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cockrell, Hooker, Parkhill, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.