Opinion
April 14, 1950.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Lake County, T.G. Futch, J.
Pringle Pringle, Leesburg, for appellants.
Futch Boone, for appellees.
Appellees, H.H. Sayle and Martha Sayle entered into contract with appellants, John W. Regnvall and Mary Regnvall for the sale of a tourist court at Leesburg, Florida, which included the lands, cottages, a filling station, store and other equipment. A substantial down payment was made, a deed was executed by the Sayles to the Regnvalls who in turn executed notes with a mortgage to secure deferred payments. The deed was executed September 4, 1947 and the mortgage was executed September 13th following. The Regnvalls took over the management of the properties at once.
On June 22, 1949, John W. and Mary K. Regnvall filed their bill of complaint, praying, among other things, that the contract of purchase be cancelled and annulled, that a receiver be appointed, that defendants be restrained from assigning the notes and mortgage and that defendants be required to repay the moneys paid them on the purchase contract. The bill of complaint was thrice amended and dismissed. This appeal is from each and every decree dismissing the amended bills of complaint.
The substance of each bill of complaint having been brought forward in the succeeding one, the only question with which we are confronted is whether or not the third amended bill of complaint contained equity.
The chancellor answered this question in the negative on the theory that complainants had an adequate remedy at law, that they were guilty of "gross laches" and that the allegations of the various amended bills were insufficient to "warrant the imposition of the harsh and radical remedy of rescission and cancellation."
The third amended bill of complaint alleges that the complainants relied on the representations of the defendants as to the acreage purported to be conveyed, the gross income from the tourist court, its frontage on the main highway and other elements that are determinative of the value of such a property. Paragraphs twelve to nineteen inclusive of the third amended bill are ample to warrant equitable relief if the material allegations therein are proven. It may be that if considered in isolation the complainants were slow in asserting their claim as to some of the grounds of relief, but as to others, this cannot be said. It may also be possible that the remedy by law was available to complainants but if equity furnishes a more complete and adequate remedy, they may elect to seek relief in that forum. Appellants are seeking relief for alleged misrepresentations that they relied on. They should not be condemned as to some because they brought all in one bill. They are entitled to relief as to such as they can prove. Since the case must go back for testimony, further discussion at this time would serve no useful purpose.
Reversed.
CHAPMAN, THOMAS and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
ADAMS, C.J., and ROBERTS, J., dissent.
SEBRING, J., not participating.