Alsheimer v. Palmer
| Decision Date | 15 May 1935 |
| Citation | 161 So. 559,119 Fla. 335 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | ALSHEIMER v. PALMER et al. |
Suit by Leo Alsheimer against Russell Palmer and others. From an order dismissing the bill of complaint, plaintiff appeals.
Order affirmed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Volusia County; M. G. Rowe, Judge.
Stewart & Stewart, of De Land, and Philip E. Buck, for appellant.
Scarlett & Futch and Jordan & Fielding, all of De Land, for appellees.
The appeal here is from an order dismissing a bill of complaint after issues were joined and full testimony taken and submitted to the court on final hearing. The suit was instituted by bill in chancery to foreclose an alleged lien for material and labor furnished under a contract between the appellant and some of the appellees.
The record showed that appellant had entered into a contract with certain of the appellees to furnish materials and labor for certain construction on a parcel of the land described in the notice of lien and in the bill of complaint. The contract provided that appellant should be repaid the amount which he was required to expend for labor and material, and, in addition thereto, was to be paid 10 per cent. of the amount so expended for his services in performing the contract.
The record shows conclusively that appellant made false fraudulent, and fictitious charges for both labor and material, although the chancellor found that the excess charges made for material were not of great consequence. Yet it is shown that appellant did charge appellees a higher price than he paid for material, and that he consistently padded the pay roll and charged a greater amount for all labor than he was required to pay, and did pay, for labor. Because of this showing, the chancellor held that the appellant, complainant in the court below, did not come into a court of equity with clean hands, that he sought to enforce a lien for an amount which was not due him and which was arrived at by padding of accounts in breach of his contract.
The record also shows that the labor performed and material furnished was so furnished and performed on only a part of the lands described in the notice of lien and in the bill of complaint, and that other lands described in the notice of lien and in the bill of complaint were not contiguous to, but were separated from, those lands or that parcel of land on which the materials were furnished and labor performed.
We think that the chancellor's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reasor v. Marshall
...not alter the rule or its application. Little v. Cunningham, supra; General Excavator Co. v. Keystone Driller Co., 62 F.2d 48; Alsheimer v. Palmer, 161 So. 559; Pfender v. Pfender, 144 A. 333, affirmed in 147 911. (11) Wrongful conduct in connection with plaintiff's case impregnates the ent......
-
Skidmore, Owings and Merrill v. Volpe Const. Co., Inc.
...and unenforceable. Hobbs Constr. & Dev., Inc. v. Presbyterian Homes, 440 So.2d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); see also Alsheimer v. Palmer, 119 Fla. 335, 161 So. 559 (1935) (padded accounts make lien unenforceable under common law applicable before enactment of mechanic's lien law). We therefore ......
-
Gamble v. Woodlea Const. Co.
...Duval v. Fuchs, 141 Mont. 123, 375 P.2d 541 (1962); Boyer v. Dawson, 207 Or. 211, 293 P.2d 739, 295 P.2d 159 (1956); Alsheimer v. Palmer, 119 Fla. 335, 161 So. 559 (1935); Byrum Hardware Co. v. Jenkins Building & Supply Co., 226 Ala. 448, 147 So. 411 (1933); Armour & Co. of Delaware v. McPh......
-
Sharrard v. Ligon, 2D03-3348.
...The use of padded accounts on a cost-plus contract to inflate the amount of a claim of lien is fraudulent. See Alsheimer v. Palmer, 119 Fla. 335, 161 So. 559 (1935) (decided under the common law applicable before the enactment of the construction lien A review of the undisputed evidence on ......