Boyd v. Hunter
| Decision Date | 25 March 1932 |
| Citation | 104 Fla. 561,140 So. 666 |
| Parties | BOYD et al. v. HUNTER. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
En Banc.
Suit by Mary L. Hunter against William Boyd and another. From a final decree and an order overruling a demurrer to a second amended bill of complaint, defendants appeal.
Reversed with directions. Appeal from Circuit Court Dade County; Jefferson B. Browne, judge.
Ross Williams and George M. Okell, both of Miami, and Bertram E Harcourt, of Medina, N. Y., for appellants.
This case is before us on appeal from a final decree and an order on demurrer incorporated in answer to a second amended bill of complaint. The record shows that appellee, who will be referred to hereafter as complainant, and William Boyd, one of the appellants, who will hereinafter be referred to as defendant, entered into an agreement in writing on the 6th day of February, 1924, concerning the purchase and resale of a certain lot of land in Miami, Fla. The written agreement was in words and figures as follows:
It is alleged that after this contract was signed by the parties the complainant Mary L. Hunter procured the lot of land to be conveyed to the defendant for the sum of $7,000. It is alleged in the bill of complaint that on August 10, 1925, the reasonable market value of the land was $50,000, and that she then advised the defendant that the land could be sold at about that price and that the defendant then, to avoid carrying out the terms of his contract with the complainant, conveyed the property to his son, Carroll W. Boyd, by deed reciting consideration in the sum of 'Ten ($10.00) and more Dollars ($10.00 & more) lawful money of the United States.'
The bill of complaint alleges:
'Complainant avers that at the date of the aforesaid execution and delivery of deed to said Carroll W. Boyd that he was then and there approximately of the age of twenty-one years, a resident of the State of New York and had no knowledge of property or as to the value of any lands situate in Dade County, Florida, and that he did not pay to the respondent William Boyd or his wife Ella Boyd any sum or sums of money whatsoever or any consideration for the execution and delivery to him of said deed of conveyance, and that said deed of conveyance, so executed by the said William Boyd and Ella Boyd, his wife, to Carroll W. Boyd was executed and delivered solely for the purpose of defrauding and defeating your complainant out of any profits under the contract aforesaid, and was fraudulent in manner and form as aforesaid:
'Complainant avers that said lot at the time of the execution and delivery of said deed to said Carroll W. Boyd was reasonably of the value of $50,000.00, thereby netting a profit of $43,000.00 to be divided equally between complainant and respondent William Boyd; and that as aforesaid the said Carroll W. Boyd paid no consideration for the said property but received the deed thereto so as to deceive and defraud complainant, and that in truth and in fact the said respondent William Boyd is still the owner of said lot and that the legal title thereto is held by the respondent Carroll W. Boyd in trust for the respondent William Boyd, and that your complainant is entitled to a division of the profits which could have been made upon the sale of said property if in fact the same had been sold in good faith and at the market value thereof.
'Complainant avers further that by reason of the combination and actions of the said respondent William Boyd and Ella Boyd, his wife, and said respondent Carroll W. Boyd that the same is tantamount to the election of the said William Boyd to hold said property individually or use the lot as a home site, and that he thereupon at the date of the execution and delivery of said deed to his son Carroll W. Boyd became liable under the terms and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re University Drive Professional Complex, Inc.
...not joint venturers if they do not have the authority to bind each other in any manner in connection with the property. Boyd v. Hunter, 104 Fla. 561, 140 So. 666 (1932). Furthermore, if one party has exclusive control there is no joint venture. Green v. Putnum, 93 So.2d 378 (Fla.1957). It i......
-
Masser v. London Operating Co.
... ... judicial discretion of the chancellor in dismissing the cause ... without prejudice has been shown. See Boyd v. Hunter ... (Fla.) 140 So. 666 ... The ... cause is remanded to the lower court, with directions to ... reform its final decree so ... ...
-
Moss v. Sperry
...been injected into the suit as a ground of relief additional to the equitable relief sought. This decision was followed in Boyd v. Hunter, 104 Fla. 561, 140 So. 666, the court held that a chancery court could not enter a personal decree for a broker's commission and declare the same to be a......
-
Boyd v. Walker, 70--822
...discussed in Tidewater Const. Co. v. Monroe County, 107 Fla. 648, 146 So. 209, 211--212 (1933). Furthermore, in Boyd v. Hunter, 104 Fla. 561, 140 So. 666 (1926) (En banc), the alleged agreement contained a provisions for a division of one-half of the profits from the sale of realty; neverth......