Emhart Corp. v. Brantley
Decision Date | 01 February 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 71--408,71--408 |
Citation | 257 So.2d 273 |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Parties | EMHART CORPORATION, a corporation d/b/a Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Company, Appellant. v. Charles E. BRANTLEY and Robbie S. Brantley, his wife, Appellees. |
Milan, Martin & Ade, and John C. Spencer, Jacksonvile, for appellant.
Charles E. Brantley, in pro. per.
Before SWANN, C.J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
ON REHEARING GRANTED
A complaint was filed in DuVal County, Florida, and duly transferred to the circuit court in Dade County, Florida. It alleged that the defendant-appellees, Mr. and Mrs. Brantley, husband and wife, signed a promissory note on July 30, 1969 for $15,022.50 at 8 per cent interest due on or before November 15, 1969. The complaint filed by appellant-plaintiff Emhart Corporation d/b/a Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Company further alleged that the note was not paid when due. Both husband and wife signed and sealed the note as makers; however, the note was not executed with all the formalities of a deed.
The order herein appealed is a final summary judgment. In pertinent part, it reads:
'* * *
'(d) The defendant, Robbie S. Brantley, urges as a defense and the plaintiff concedes that the note executed by her does not comply with the decisions under Section 1, Article XI, of the Constitution of the State of Florida adopted in 1885 as amended, which provides as follows:
'(e) The note sued upon was executed (on July 30, 1969,) after the effective date (that is, January 7, 1969,) of the Constitution of the State of Florida adopted at the general election of November 5, 1968, which provides at Section 5, Article X, as follows:
'(f) It is unclear that Section 5, Article X, of the new Constitution was intended to repeal the laws respecting conveyances by married women enacted pursuant to Section 1, Article XI, of the old Constitution and, accordingly, the defendant, ROBBIE S. BRANTLEY'S defense is found to be good.
'(g) Upon motion previously made by the plaintiff, this Court entered Summary Final Judgment against the defendant, CHARLES E. BRANTLEY, on May 19, 1970.
'Upon consideration thereof, it is ADJUDGED:
'That judgment is entered against the plaintiff, EMHART CORPORATION, a corporation, d/b/a WILSON & TOOMER FERTILIZER COMPANY, and that the plaintiff take nothing by this action against the defendant, ROBBIE S. BRANTLEY, and that the defendant, ROBBIE S. BRANTLEY, go hence without day.'
The appellant's sole point on appeal was that the lower court erred in failing to apply the constitutional mandate that there shall be no distinction between the property rights of married women and married men. After reading the briefs, hearing oral argument, and considering the brief record, this court entered a memorandum per curiam affirmance of the final judgment. Upon a timely petition for rehearing, we allowed oral argument of the matter raised in the petition. In pertinent part, the petition recited that:
'* * *
In addition to the pertinent provisions of the Constitutions of 1885 and 1968 which we have already quoted, the following two sections of Article XII of the 1968 Constitution, F.S.A., are relevant to our discussion:
'(b) All statutes which, under the Constitution of 1885, as amended, apply to the state superintendent of public instruction and those which apply to the county superintendent of public instruction shall under this revision apply, respectively to the state commissioner of education and the district superintendent of schools.
'(b) This revision shall...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lloyd By and Through Lloyd v. North Broward Hosp. Dist., s. 87-2250
...See, e.g., Sandlin v. Criminal Justice Standards & Training Comm'n, 531 So.2d 1344, 1346 (Fla.1988); Emhart Corp. v. Brantley, 257 So.2d 273, 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). The interpretation we have adopted is, in our view, logical and avoids a construction which would otherwise render the statut......