From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

O'Donoghue v. S.A.M. Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Sep 11, 1961
132 So. 2d 628 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1961)

Opinion

No. 60-669.

September 11, 1961.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, William A. Herin, J.

Miller Podell, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Burnett Roth and Theodore M. Trushin, Miami Beach, Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Atkins, Carson Wahl, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C.J., and CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.


Appellant, plaintiff below, filed his amended complaint against the appellees, defendants below, in a chancery suit.

This appeal is from a final order of the chancellor dismissing, without prejudice, plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action cognizable in equity.

We find the chancellor was correct in his holding that the amended complaint failed to state a cause of action cognizable in equity. However, we find he was in error in dismissing the amended complaint instead of transferring the case to the law side of the court in accordance with rule 1.39, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A. See Staiger v. Greb, Fla.App. 1957, 97 So.2d 494; Cook v. Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Dist., Fla. App. 1959, 114 So.2d 691; Rizzo v. Euclid Urbana Co., Fla.App. 1960, 118 So.2d 553.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part with directions that the suit be transferred for proceedings at law.


Summaries of

O'Donoghue v. S.A.M. Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Sep 11, 1961
132 So. 2d 628 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1961)
Case details for

O'Donoghue v. S.A.M. Corp.

Case Details

Full title:DEREK L. O'DONOGHUE, APPELLANT, v. S.A.M. CORP. ET AL., APPELLEES

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Sep 11, 1961

Citations

132 So. 2d 628 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1961)