
    MAHIN v. MAHIN.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    July 22, 1936.
    Rehearing Denied Sept. 10, 1936.
    Fielding & Duncan and Adkins & Ar-now, all of Gainesville, for appellant.
    Scruggs & Sobol and Fred D. Bryant, all of Gainesville, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record of the order herein and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is no error in the said order. It is therefore considered, ordered, and de.creed by the court that the said order of the circuit court be, and the same is hereby, affirmed on the authority of Braswell v. Downs, 11 Fla. 62; McCamy v. Payne, 94 Fla. 209, 113 So. 712.

WHITFIELD, C. J., and ELLIS, TERRELL, BROWN, BUFORD, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

On Petition for Rehearing.

PER CURIAM.

The holding of the court is that the controversy attempted to be presented by the amended bill of complaint is one of equitable cognizance and that the allegations of the bill of complaint involved are sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Such is the import of the opinion in McCamy v. Payne, 94 Fla. 209, 113 So. 712 (receded from on rehearing on other points in 94 Fla. 210, 116 So. 267). This disposes also of the motion of appellant to transfer the cause to the law side of the court, which motion the circuit court properly denied. If there are defenses to the bill such as laches, ratification, waiver, estoppel, and the like, they may be advanced in due course by answer. See Link v. Friou, 116 Fla. 337, 156 So. 719. The amended bill specifically alleges that the guardian breached the trust reposed in him for the benefit of his minor son and shows that the third party (appellant) to whom was conveyed the land acquired by him as guardian stands in such guardian’s shoes with reference to it, if the allegations and intendments of the bill are true as alleged. Such a bill is a good bill, and a motion to dismiss it should have been denied.

Rehearing denied.

WHITFIELD, C. J., and ELLIS, TERRELL, BROWN, BUFORD, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.  