cause within rule in Florida

1989James A. Knowles, Inc. v. Imperial Lumber Company, 238 So.2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970).

1987James A. Knowles, Inc. v. Imperial Lumber Co., 238 So.2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970).

1995In the case of Hart v. Handling Systems Engineering, Inc., 502 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), which Judge Hams cites and quotes, it was held that where a plaintiff seeking to maintain his suit in a county other than the defendant’s residence (i.e., other than Lake County in the instant case), “the complaint should circumscribe facts which bring the cause within an exception set forth in the applicable venue statute.” The plaintiffs herein clearly have failed to do that, as Judge Harris acknowledges.

1960No showing has been made to bring this cause within the exception set forth in State Fire & Casualty Company v. State, supra. The order setting aside the final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to reinstate the final judgment enforcing the forfeiture which was dated May 11, 1959 and recorded in Minute Book 410, at page 367.

1960See also Crompton v. State, Fla.1955, 78 So.2d 692 ; Capitol Indemnity Insurance Company v. State, Fla.1956, 86 So.2d 156 .

1944See Gallemore v. Gallemore, 94 Fla. 516 , 114 So. 371 ; Mooty v. Mooty, 131 Fla. 151 , 179 So. 155 ; Norton v. Norton, 131 Fla. 219 , 179 So. 414 ; Rice v. Rice, 148 Fla. 620 , 4 So.2d 850 ." *Page 85 The crux of the controversy here presented is whether or not the facts as alleged in the challenged bill are legally sufficient to bring the cause within the rule enunciated by this Court in its former ruling in Miller v Miller, supra. The learned chancellor below denied the motion to dismiss, thereby holding that the bill contained equity, and that the defendants below should answer the bill.

1944See Gallemore v. Gallemore, 94 Fla. 516 , 114 So. 371 ; Mooty v. Mooty, 131 Fla. 151 , 179 So. 155 ; Norton v. Norton, 131 Fla. 219 , 179 So. 414 ; Rice v. Rice, 148 Fla. 620 , 4 So.2d 850 ." *Page 85 The crux of the controversy here presented is whether or not the facts as alleged in the challenged bill are legally sufficient to bring the cause within the rule enunciated by this Court in its former ruling in Miller v Miller, supra. The learned chancellor below denied the motion to dismiss, thereby holding that the bill contained equity, and that the defendants below should answer the bill.

1944See Gallemore v. Gallemore, 94 Fla. 516 , 114 So. 371 ; Mooty v. Mooty, 131 Fla. 151 , 179 So. 155 ; Norton v. Norton, 131 Fla. 219 , 179 So. 414 ; Rice v. Rice, 148 Fla. 620 , 4 So.2d 850 ." *Page 85 The crux of the controversy here presented is whether or not the facts as alleged in the challenged bill are legally sufficient to bring the cause within the rule enunciated by this Court in its former ruling in Miller v Miller, supra. The learned chancellor below denied the motion to dismiss, thereby holding that the bill contained equity, and that the defendants below should answer the bill.

1944See Gallemore v. Gallemore, 94 Fla. 516 , 114 So. 371 ; Mooty v. Mooty, 131 Fla. 151 , 179 So. 155 ; Norton v. Norton, 131 Fla. 219 , 179 So. 414 ; Rice v. Rice, 148 Fla. 620 , 4 So.2d 850 ." *Page 85 The crux of the controversy here presented is whether or not the facts as alleged in the challenged bill are legally sufficient to bring the cause within the rule enunciated by this Court in its former ruling in Miller v Miller, supra. The learned chancellor below denied the motion to dismiss, thereby holding that the bill contained equity, and that the defendants below should answer the bill.

1944See Gallemore v. Gallemore, 94 Fla. 516 , 114 So. 371 ; Mooty v. Mooty, 131 Fla. 151 , 179 So. 155 ; Norton v. Norton, 131 Fla. 219 , 179 So. 414 ; Rice v. Rice, 148 Fla. 620 , 4 So.2d 850 ." *Page 85 The crux of the controversy here presented is whether or not the facts as alleged in the challenged bill are legally sufficient to bring the cause within the rule enunciated by this Court in its former ruling in Miller v Miller, supra. The learned chancellor below denied the motion to dismiss, thereby holding that the bill contained equity, and that the defendants below should answer the bill.

1944See Gallemore v. Gallemore, 94 Fla. 516 , 114 So. 371 ; Mooty v. Mooty, 131 Fla. 151 , 179 So. 155 ; Norton v. Norton, 131 Fla. 219 , 179 So. 414 ; Rice v. Rice, 148 Fla. 620 , 4 So.2d 850 ." *Page 85 The crux of the controversy here presented is whether or not the facts as alleged in the challenged bill are legally sufficient to bring the cause within the rule enunciated by this Court in its former ruling in Miller v Miller, supra. The learned chancellor below denied the motion to dismiss, thereby holding that the bill contained equity, and that the defendants below should answer the bill.