Court Opinion

ID: 9652968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:36:10.347117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:55.472504
License: Public Domain

BRYAN, Circuit Judge.
I dissent because I believe it was decided in the equity suit that the title to the land in dispute was in the city of Tampa. The decree in that suit was upon bill and answer after the time for taking testimony had expired, and found the equities to be with the defendants, of which the appellee here was one, “and not with the complainants,” who are appellants here, and simply dismissed the bill of complaint. There was no saving clause to the effect that the dismissal was without prejudice, or because there was an adequate remedy at law. The bill alleged more than a mere trespass; it alleged the taking of plaintiffs’ property for the purpose of widening a street and building a highway. The city did not deny the taking, but admitted and justified it, claiming title in itself. It is too much to assume that the equity court might have refused to enjoin the taking of private property without just compensation being first paid or secured, in disregard of article 16, § 29, of the state Constitution. In DaCosta v. Dibble, 40 Fla. 418, at page 424, 24 So. 911, 913, it is said: “While every dismissal upon a final hearing is not necessarily an adjudication on the merits, yet the rule is that where the cause is at issue, and on final hearing, either upon pleadings and testimony, or upon the pleadings after the time for taking testimony has expired, a dismissal of the bill by the court, even if done on complainant’s motion, is deemed to be a dismissal upon the merits; this being a conclusive presumption from the record, where the order is not made ‘without prejudice,’ and nothing appears to show that the dismissal was upon other grounds.” To the same effect is Lyon v. Perin, etc., Co., 125 U. S. 698, 8 S. Ct. 1024, 31 L. Ed. 839. See, also, Robbins v. Hanbury, 37 Fla. 468, 19 So. 886; Gray v. Gray, 91 Fla. 103, 107 So. 261. Under the Florida practice at least, a decree finding the equities with the defendant and unconditionally dismissing the bill of-complaint is a decision in favor of the defendant on the merits, of the issues involved. Such a decree is not subject to be explained away on the theory that possibly the court meant to hold that it was without jurisdiction, or that the plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law.