Fisher v. Davenport

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Citation84 So.2d 910
PartiesGeorge Trinkle FISHER, Appellant, v. Inez DAVENPORT, Appellee.
Decision Date27 January 1956

Sam E. Murrell, Sam E. Murrell, Jr., and Robert G. Murrell, Orlando, for appellant.

Turnbull & Senterfitt, Orlando, for appellee.

THOMAS, Justice.

The appellant commenced a suit against the appellee seeking a declaration of his rights under a contract for the sale of lands to him and appellee by a person who was not made a party to the suit, and a partition by sale of the contract and the interests of the parties and division of the proceeds.

The chancellor eventually dismissed the cause upon the motion of the appellee directed to the amended complaint.

The parties to this litigation, who were then husband and wife, entered into an agreement, 28 August 1952, to buy a tract of land from one R. H. Stebbins for eight thousand dollars, payable five hundred dollars in cash, five hundred dollars 1 January 1953, and thirty-five dollars on the first day of each month beginning 1 March 1953. At the time the suit was instituted all payments had been made as they fell due.

On 16 April 1954 the appellant and appellee were divorced.

Although the appellant had met the payments required by the contract as each came due, he represented that he would not be able to continue his compliance with the contract in this respect and he expressed the belief that in event of default the seller would, in accordance with the option contained in the contract of sale, terminate the agreement, retain monies paid as liquidated damages, and repossess the premises.

The appellant represented that he and the appellee had been unable to agree either upon a division of the property or a sale of the contract and that uncertainty had arisen as to his rights.

It is difficult for us to comprehend why he is puzzled about his rights as 'co-vendee' in an executory contract for the purchase of land and equally hard for us to understand how he can obtain now a decree of partition of such a contract against the other vendee.

No valid doubt appears from the allegations of the amended complaint, in fact, if the exhibits made a part of the pleading are considered, any suggestion even of doubt is dissipated. Attached is a copy of the decree of divorce incorporating the settlement agreement between the parties and it is plain from both that the appellant and the appellee each would receive a one-half undivided interest in the property being purchased from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Burns v. Burns, 4966
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 9 Abril 1965
    ...affirmed in every respect. Affirmed in part and reversed in part with directions. SMITH, C. J., and STANNON, J., concur. 1 Fisher v. Davenport, Fla.1956, 84 So.2d 910.2 Fields v. Fields, 1948, 160 Fla. 561, 35 So.2d 722.3 Beverette v. Graham, 1931, 101 Fla. 563, 132 So. 826.4 Gonzalez v. Go......
  • White v. Miami Electronics Center, Inc., 95-3564
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 31 Julio 1996
    ...Miami Electronics Center, Inc., v. Saporta, 597 So.2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), review denied, 613 So.2d 8 (Fla.1992). See Fisher v. Davenport, 84 So.2d 910 (Fla.1956); Rosen v. Marlin, 486 So.2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); review denied, 494 So.2d 1151 (Fla.1986); Peacock v. Peacock, 439 So.2d 9......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT