Armstrong v. Richards, (1937)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 4
Judges: BUFORD, J.
Attorneys: Leon J.C. Harton, H.B. Hodgden and John S. Byington, for Appellants;
George M. Powell and Millard B. Conklin, for Appellees.
Filed: May 28, 1937
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: The appeal brings for review an order denying motion to strike portions of an amended bill of complaint and motion to dismiss amended bill of complaint. The bill of complaint is voluminous. The suit was instituted by the appellees in the court below, one as a City Commissioner and the other as a former City Commissioner, and as citizens and taxpayers of Daytona Beach, a Municipal Corporation, as a class suit to require the appellants to account for and pay over to the City of Daytona Beach certa
Summary: The appeal brings for review an order denying motion to strike portions of an amended bill of complaint and motion to dismiss amended bill of complaint. The bill of complaint is voluminous. The suit was instituted by the appellees in the court below, one as a City Commissioner and the other as a former City Commissioner, and as citizens and taxpayers of Daytona Beach, a Municipal Corporation, as a class suit to require the appellants to account for and pay over to the City of Daytona Beach certai..
More
The holding in this case is nothing more than saying that courts of equity as well as law may grant redress under the circumstances heretofore discussed by us in First Nat. Bank v. Filer, 107 Fla. 526, 145 Sou. Rep. Page 204, with reference to liabilities of public officers to taxpayers and others.
Source: CourtListener
