Davis v. Battle
Decision Date | 04 March 1938 |
Citation | 182 So. 243,132 Fla. 240 |
Parties | DAVIS et al. v. BATTLE et al. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
On Rehearing June 15, 1938.
Extraordinary Petition for Rehearing Denied July 6, 1938.
Suit by Ben Battle and another, a co-partnership doing business under the partnership name of Battle & Hicks, against Mary I. Davis and her husband, to subject defendant's property of the named defendant to equitable lien. Decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
Reversed with directions.
On Petition for Rehearing. Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Jefferson B. Browne, judge.
Copeland & Therrel, of Miami Beach, for appellants.
Redfearn & Ferrell, of Miami for appellees.
On June 13, 1937, plaintiffs below filed in the circuit court of Dade county, Fla., a suit in equity against Mary I. Davis, a married woman, to subject her separate property to an equitable lien for the sum of $1,137.50 growing out of the following instrument:
'Miami Beach, Florida, February 28, 1936.
'Receipt is hereby acknowledged of the sum of: Five Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($5,600.00) from J. Paul Baker, Jr.
'The above cashier's check for $4,600.00 to be held in the escrow department of the National Title Company pending final closing of this sale, as a deposit on account of the purchase price of the following described property upon the terms and conditions as stated herein.
'It is understood and agreed that this property is being sold and purchased subject to the restrictions and limitations of record common to the neighborhood, and subject to any easements for public utilities, which may be of record, or may become liens through pending legislation before consummation of contract.
'It is agreed that this transaction shall be closed and the purchaser shall pay the balance of the first payment and execute all paper necessary to be executed by him for the completion of his purchase within 30 days from delivery or tender to him of a complete abstract of the said property; otherwise the sum this day paid shall be retained by the seller as liquidated damages, and the parties hereto shall be relieved from all obligations under this instrument.
'This contract shall be binding upon both parties when approved by the owner of the property above described.
'Battle & Hicks Broker
'By Wm. A. Rhodes.
'I, or we, agree to purchase the above described property on the terms and conditions stated in the foregoing instrument.
'J. Paul Baker, Jr. [Seal] or his assignee
'Witness:
'Wm. A. Rhodes
'R. T. Hicks
'I, or we, agree to sell the above mentioned property to the above named purchaser on the terms and conditions stated in the above instrument.
'Mary I. Davis [Seal]
'Witness:
'Catchings Therrel
'Wm. A. Rhodes
'I, or we, agree to pay to the above signed broker, as commission for finding a purchaser for the above property, the sum of Eleven Hundred Thirty-seven 50/100 Dollars ($1,137.50) or one-half of the deposit, in case same is forfeited by purchaser, provided the same shall not exceed the full amount of the commission.
'Mary I. Davis [Seal]
'George W. Davis [Seal]
'Witness:
'Catchings Therrel
'Wm. A. Rhodes'
The sum of $1,137.50 is a commission for finding a purchaser able and willing to buy the property, and, after appellees had performed each and every requirement of the instrument, the defendant below directed that a deposit of $5,600 be returned to the purchaser, and she, in turn, listed her property with other real estate brokers of Miami Beach at the sum of $65,000, it being asserted that the finding of a purchaser for the property was an agreement inuring to the benefit of the separate property of Mrs. Mary I. Davis.
A motion to dismiss the bill of complaint on a number of grounds was by the court overruled. On September 7, 1936, an answer was filed by Mary I. Davis and her husband, George W. Davis, denying the material allegations of the bill of complaint, the principal defense being that no money or other thing of benefit to the separate property of Mary I. Davis was received through the activities of the plaintiffs and that no increase of benefit to her separate property accrued, and she denied that the value thereof was enhanced, increased, or was benefited by the instrument, supra, of the parties.
Considerable evidence was taken before a special master authorized to make findings as to facts and law, and, after hearing all the testimony, the equities of the cause, he so reported, to be with plaintiffs and recommended a decree subjecting the separate property of Mary I. Davis to the payment of the real estate broker's commission in the sum of $1,137.50; that plaintiffs had an equitable lien on the property and the same should be sold to pay the same. On final hearing the equities were held to be with the plaintiffs, when an appeal was taken and the cause is here for review on a number of assignments of error.
It is asserted that the plaintiffs found a purchaser for the property, ready, willing, and able to pay for it; that the plaintiffs' part of the contract was executed and they were as a matter of law entitled to their commission in the sum of $1,137.50; that title to the property was in Mary I. Davis and she declined to close the trade but directed the 'binder' returned to the purchaser and another listing was made at an advance in price of about $9,000. The plaintiffs contend the contract of sale inured to the benefit of Mrs. Mary I. Davis, enhanced its value, and increased its benefits, all of which was denied by the defendants below. The written agreement was to find a purchaser for the property, ready, willing and able and the terms of the employment was not to sell the property. In the case of Hutchins & Co. v. Sherman, 82 Fla. 167, 89 So. 430, this court said:
.'
The rule as to commission for finding a purchaser ready, willing, and able to purchase is well settled in Florida. The usual procedure is in a common-law action, but, the defendant below being a married woman, her liability therefor, if any, must be determined by a court of equity. Section 2, article XI, of the Constitution of Florida, provides:
'Section 2: A married woman's separate real or personal property may be charged in equity and sole, or the uses, rents and profits thereof sequestrated for the purchase money thereof; or for money or thing due upon any agreement made by her in writing for the benefit of her separate property; or for the price of any property purchased by her, or for labor and material used with her knowledge or assent in the construction of buildings, or repairs, or improvements upon her property, or for agricultural or other labor be stowed thereon, with her knowledge and consent.'
The question for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Horvath v. Sheridan-Wyoming Coal Co.
... ... The rule has been ... recognized and applied in a vast number of cases. Some of the ... more modern decisions on the point are: Davis. v. Battle ... (Fla.) 182 So. 243; Beyer v. Wolfe (Ill.) 228 ... Ill.App. 429; Petroleum Ref. Corp. v. Oil Co ... (Okla.) 65 F.2d 997; ... ...
-
Davis v. Battle
...123 So. 761], supra. We have searched in vain for the evidence to support the conclusions of the chancellor below on this point.' Davis v. Battle, supra, 132 Fla. text page 252, 182 So. text page 248, 117 742, the phraseology immediately preceding that part of the opinion which we have alre......
-
Kay v. Sperling
...Fla. 477, 35 So.2d 387; Lyne v. Warriner, Fla., 44 So.2d 811; Livingstone v. Malever, 103 Fla. 200, 137 So. 113; Davis v. Battle, 132 Fla. 240, 182 So. 243, 117 A.L.R. 742; Hutchins & Co. v. Sherman, 82 Fla. 167, 89 So. 430; and Taylor v. Dorsey, 155 Fla. 305, 19 So.2d 876. In none of these......
- Mcadoo v. International Realty Associates, Inc.