Case ID: fla_93/html/0283-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

L. E. Liebmann, Appellant, v. Ada Johnson, et al., Appellees.
    
    Division B.
    Opinion Filed February 15, 1927.
    1. Where a demurrer for multfariousness is incorporated in an answer and is overruled at final hearing on the evidence, the ruling will ordinarily not be reversed. The ruling herein does not conflict with 73 Fla. 191; 59 Fla. 587; 68 Fla. 261.
    2. It appears to us that the Order of the Chancellor should be sustained upon authority of the opinion in the case of Farrall v. Forest Investment Company, 73 Fla. 191, 74 Sou. 216.
    3. What is here said is not in conflict with the rule laid down in MeKainey v. Jarrell, 59 Fla. 587; 52 Soil. 304; Terra Ceia Estates v. Taylor, 68 Fla. 261, 67 Sou. 169.
    An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County; T. F. West, Judge.
    Order affirmed.
    
      F. W. Marsh, for Appellant,
    
      R. Pope Reese, for Appellees.
   Per Curiam.

In this case bill was filed prior to the enactment of Chapter No. 11383, Laws of Fla., approved Nov. 30, 1925. The relief sought was the quieting of title to two separate parcels of land. The appellant responded to notice by publication directed to unknown defendants and filed his answer, in which he denied all allegations of the bill, except those to which he alleged he was without knowledge and of those allegations demanded proof. In his answer he incorporated a demurrer. In due course a- Master was appointed, testimony taken and the case was presented to the Chancellor for final disposition, at which time the dumurrer above mentioned was considered by the Chancellor. The salient ground of objection to the bill raised by the dumurrer was that it was multifarious.

If the appellant had filed a demurrer to the bill and, standing upon that, had brought the same on for hearing, it may be that the Chancellor’s ruling on the demurrer would not have been as it was when it came on for hearing together with the merits of the cause áfter testimony had been taken. ■■■

It appears to us that the order of the Chancellor should be sustained upon authority of the opinion in the case of Farrall v. Forest Investment Company, 73 Fla. 191, 74 Sou. 216, and it is so ordered. What is here said is not in conflict with the rule laid down in McRainey v. Jarrell 59 Fla. 587, 52 Sou. 304; Terra Ceia Estates v. Taylor, 68 Fla. 261, 67 So. 169.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, and Buford J. J., concur.

Elias, C. J., and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.