¶1(dissenting). — I can not concur in the opinion that this court under the circumstances of this case, should ex mero motu, raise the question of the jurisdiction of equity as applied to the facts of the case. The acts charged against the defendant of changing the marks and brands of the cattle, and of disposing of them so as to defeat complainant’s rights, amount to charges of fraud. Moreover, the bill prays for an accounting and discovery. These are matters of equity jurisdiction, and, in the absence of a demurrer or plea raising the question of jurisdiction, and the case having gone to a hearing on its merits, I think this court should review the final decree appealed from. 1 Cyc. 420; Reynes v. Dumont, 130 U. S. 354, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 486; Kilbourn v. Sunderland, 130 U. S. 505, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594; Tyler v. Savage, 143 U. S. 79, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 340; DeCottes v. Clarkson, 43 Fla. 1, 29 South. Rep. 442.
48 Fla. 268
Hendry v. Whidden
Decided June 15, 1904
Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1904-06-15
This case was decided by the court En Banc. Appeal from the Circuit Court for DeSoto county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently August 1932
4 state decisions
Relies on Reynes v. Dumont · Kilbourn v. Sunderland · Tyler v. Savage
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1904-06-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →