Drake Lumber Co. v. Branning

• Decision Date: 06 January 1914
• Citation: 66 Fla. 543,64 So. 263
• Parties: DRAKE LUMBER CO. v. BRANNING et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

64 So. 263

66 Fla. 543

DRAKE LUMBER CO. v. BRANNING et al.

Florida Supreme Court

January 6, 1914

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Bethel, Judge.

Bill by the Drake Lumber Company, a corporation, against H. P Branning, as administrator ad litem, and another. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. Affirmed in part, and reversed in part.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

An enforcement by a court of equity of the specific performance of contracts for the sale of land or of timber growing thereon is not a matter of absolute right; but specific performance of such contracts may be enforced by the court in the exercise of its judicial discretion, which is controlled by settled principles of law and equity that are applicable to the particular facts in each case.

Where real estate is purchased with notice or knowledge that the grantor was obligated to convey it to another, the purchaser in the absence of a countervailing equity, may be compelled to perform the obligation to convey in the same manner and to the same extent that his grantor would have been liable to do had he not transferred the legal title.

Where a bill of complaint states any equity for relief, the bill should not be dismissed sua sponte.

COUNSEL Shutts, Smith & Bowen, of Miami, for appellant.

Price &amp Railey, of Miami, for appellees.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

This appeal is from a decree sustaining a demurrer to a bill of complaint, and dismissing the bill brought by Drake Lumber Company seeking the enforcement of a specific performance by the administrator ad litem of a contract for the sale of growing timber made by Ernest L. Maull, deceased. The contract is as follows:

'Received of Drake Lumber Co. ($240.00) two hundred and forty and no/100 dollars, payment in full for all the timber on 80 acres of my land described as follows: W. 1/2 of the N.W. 1/4 of Sec. 4, Tp. 56 S. of R. 39, and deed of which I will make to them at any time they require same.

'[Signed] Ernest L. Maull.'

The bill of complaint alleges: That the contract was made on May 10, 1907; the consideration of $240 being paid in full. That on September 10, 1909, Ernest L. Maull died intestate without executing the conveyance. That on April 4, 1910, S. B. Wright, Jr., was appointed and qualified as administrator of the estate of Ernest L. Maull, deceased, and proceeded to wind up its affairs. That under the statutes of Florida 'an administrator is authorized and compelled to execute deeds to property, contracts of sale for which have been made prior to the death of administrator's intestate.' 'That S. B. Wright, Jr., as administrator, did not perform his duty in that behalf, and did not execute such deed.' 'That on the 29th day of April, 1910, the said S. B. Wright, Jr., having filed his final report as administrator, was duly discharged as such administrator, and that said discharge was improper in law so long as your orator's contract of sale had not been terminated by a deed, and that it was improper to close said estate until such conveyance was executed and delivered.' That on March 22, 1910, one George L. Maull, representing himself to be the father and sole heir of Ernest L. Maull, deceased, did execute and deliver to the said S. B. Wright, Jr., as trustee, a deed conveying the land and timber, and that subsequent to said deed the said S. B. Wright, Jr., as trustee, conveyed the same property to G. M. Weeks. That the conveyance from George L. Maull to S. B. Wright, Jr., as trustee, was charged with the trust to convey to complainant said timber, and said conveyance was subject to all the rights of complainant. That said conveyance was made before the appointment of an administrator of said estate, and before complainant had an opportunity to make demand for a conveyance in accordance with its contract, and complainant charges that said S. B. Wright, Jr., 'took the said property with full notice of your orator's rights, either actual or constructive, and that said G. M. Weeks, one of the defendants, purchased said property with full knowledge of your orator's rights to a conveyance of said timber, and charged with all its right thereto.' That subsequent to the discharge of S. B. Wright, Jr., as administrator, complainant applied to the county judge's court for an order appointing an administrator ad litem of the estate of Ernest L. Maull, deceased, in order to fully complete the administration of said estate. That H. P. Branning was appointed 'administrator ad litem to do and perform such matters and things in connection with the said estate that might be ordered by the county judge's court or any other court of competent jurisdiction in order to fully complete the administration of said estate. That demand has been made upon the said G. M. Weeks to recover the timber to which complainant is rightfully entitled, and said G. M. Weeks has refused so to do. That demand has been made upon the said H. P. Branning to execute a deed for said timber in order to fully complete the administration of said estate, and that said H. P. Branning refuses so to do, for the reason that he prefers that said deed be ordered...