Mayfield v. Wernicke Chemical Co.
Citations
- 65 Fla. 113
- 61 So. 191
Syllabus
<p>1. No abuse of judicial discretion is shown by a Circuit Judge in refusing to enlarge the time for taking testimony in a chancery case, when the application to enlarge was made six weeks after the cause had been properly set down for hearing on bill, answer and replication, and no sufficient explanation is made of the delay in making the application.</p> <p>2. The rule with reference to allowing the dismissal of an equity cause by complainant without prejudice, enouced in Tilghman Cypress Co. v. John R. Young Co., 60 Ma. 382, 53' South. Rep. 939, reaffirmed and applied.</p> <p>3. Where in a bill to remove a cloud upon the title to land, there is no allegation that the complainants were in the possession of the land when the bill was filed, and when the allegations that the lands “have been for several years and are now uncultivated and unimproved” is denied by the answer, and the case is finally heard on bill, answer and replication, there i s no error committed in dismissing the bill.</p>
Judges: Cockrell, Hocker, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.