equity rule in Florida

1997Relying on Zaleznik v. Gulf Coast Roofing Co., Inc., 576 So.2d 776 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), the trial court entered judgment in favor of Equity for $17,100.

1994He relies on Evans v. Parker, 440 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), an action for damages in which this court held that "it is axiomatic that partial performance of an oral contract removes such contract from the statute of frauds." This case was discussed in Dwight v. Tobin , where the federal court observed: While one Florida district court of appeals may have neglected to apply the equity rule at the time the court decided Evans , see Bertram Yacht Sales, Inc. v. West, 209 So.2d 677 (Fla. Dist.

1994He relies on Evans v. Parker, 440 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), an action for damages in which this court held that "it is axiomatic that partial performance of an oral contract removes such contract from the statute of frauds." This case was discussed in Dwight v. Tobin , where the federal court observed: While one Florida district court of appeals may have neglected to apply the equity rule at the time the court decided Evans , see Bertram Yacht Sales, Inc. v. West, 209 So.2d 677 (Fla. Dist.

1992The courts have recognized that this doctrine of equity does not apply if the right is relinquished by "a subsequent agreement upon a further consideration." Stovall v. Stokes, 94 Fla. 717, 741 , 115 So. 828, 837 (1928) (quoting Skeels v. Blanchard, 85 Vt. 288 , 81 A. 913 (1911).

1992The courts have recognized that this doctrine of equity does not apply if the right is relinquished by "a subsequent agreement upon a further consideration." Stovall v. Stokes, 94 Fla. 717, 741 , 115 So. 828, 837 (1928) (quoting Skeels v. Blanchard, 85 Vt. 288 , 81 A. 913 (1911).

1990The court in Smith v. Superior Court, 151 Cal. App.3d 491 , 198 Cal. Rptr. 829 (1984), applied the equity exception.

1990The court in Smith v. Superior Court, 151 Cal. App.3d 491 , 198 Cal. Rptr. 829 (1984), applied the equity exception.

1990See 1.110(g), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure; see and compare Pan American Bank of Miami v. Osgood, 383 So.2d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Raney v. Jimmie Diesel Corp., 362 So.2d 997 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).

1958In Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Claughton, Fla.1956, 86 So.2d 775, 790 , where the doctrine of equitable estop-pel was applied, the Supreme Court did approve the following language: “ ‘ * * * It thus appears that what has been called an equitable estop-pel, and sometimes with less propriety an estoppel in pais, is properly and peculiarly a doctrine of equity, originally introduced there to prevent a party from taking a dishonest and uncon-scientious advantage of his strict legal rights, — though now with us, like many other doctrines of equity, habitually administered at law. * * *

1938We are not unmindful of the well settled equity rule to the effect that every presumption is in favor of the ruling of the trial Judge and that the equities of the cause were correctly decided by the Chancellor as fully expressed in Palm Beach Estates v. Croker, 106 Fla. 617 , 143 So. 792 , but we can not overlook the fact of the cement and iron stob markers and the location of the wire fence on a lin« between the two and the claim of ownership on the part of the appellant by using the trees and vegetation as a *723 wind breaker for his fruit trees south of the wire fence for some twenty odd y

1938We are not unmindful of the well settled equity rule to the effect that every presumption is in favor of the ruling of the trial Judge and that the equities of the cause were correctly decided by the Chancellor as fully expressed in Palm Beach Estates v. Croker, 106 Fla. 617 , 143 So. 792 , but we can not overlook the fact of the cement and iron stob markers and the location of the wire fence on a lin« between the two and the claim of ownership on the part of the appellant by using the trees and vegetation as a *723 wind breaker for his fruit trees south of the wire fence for some twenty odd y

1932Co. *568 v. Galloway, 155 Ala. 628 , 47 South.

1932Co. *568 v. Galloway, 155 Ala. 628 , 47 South.

1932This Court in Moyers v. Coiner, supra., said: "In a court of equity this rule is departed from, when the failing party can show to the court any circumstances which would render it unjust that he should pay the costs of the proceedings.” See also Willis Valley Mining & Mfg.

1931Murrhee, 75 Fla. 494 , 78 Sou. 536 , Mr. Justice West, speaking for the Court said: “In equity causes costs are awarded in the sound discretion of the court as justice may require in the particular case, and the appellate court will not interfere unless abuse of discretion is made to appear.” So it appears that the rule is well settled that in equity causes it is within the province of the chancellor to make an order pro-rating the costs, if there appear facts or circumstances which would render it inequitable and unjust to require the losing party to pay the entire cost.

1931Murrhee, 75 Fla. 494 , 78 Sou. 536 , Mr. Justice West, speaking for the Court said: “In equity causes costs are awarded in the sound discretion of the court as justice may require in the particular case, and the appellate court will not interfere unless abuse of discretion is made to appear.” So it appears that the rule is well settled that in equity causes it is within the province of the chancellor to make an order pro-rating the costs, if there appear facts or circumstances which would render it inequitable and unjust to require the losing party to pay the entire cost.

1919The complainants’ solicitor contends that the equity rule announced by the court in Randall v. Bourgardez, 23 Fla. 264 , 2 South.

1919Rep. 310 , and in Adams v. Fry, 29 Fla. 318 , 10 South.

1914As to the further contention of the plaintiffs in error that the bill did not specifically pray for the entry of a deficiency decree, it is sufficient to say that this court held in Mattair v. Card, 18 Fla. 761 , that “a decree against a mortgagor for any deficiency of money due after deducting the amount realized on the sale, may be entered under the general prayer of the .bill.

1901Bank v. Minneapolis and N. Elevator Co., 43 N. W. 806 ; and in an able and exhaustive opinion, Mr. Chief Justice Tripp reviewed the whole field, covering this subject, and there said: “The equity rule in regard to mortgages was adopted by our codifiers and has been embodied in our statute.