Gentile Brothers, Inc. v. Bryan
| Decision Date | 15 April 1931 |
| Parties | GENTILE BROTHERS, Inc. v. BRYAN. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Suit by Gentile Brothers, Incorporated, against L. M. Bryan. From an adverse decree, complainant appeals.
Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court.
A mortgage given upon fruit produced by cultivation upon the homestead is not an alienation of the homestead real estate requiring the joint consent of the husband and wife.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Hardee County; W. J Barker, judge.
Holland & Bevis and Robert L. Hughes, all of Bartow, for appellant.
Leitner & Leitner, of Arcadia, for appellee.
L. M Bryan, without the concurrence of his wife, executed a mortgage 'lien upon all citrus fruit that may be produced on trees growing upon' described lands, the homestead of the mortgagor. The mortgage contains a personal covenant that Bryan 'will at all times cultivate, spray for control of pests and diseases, and in all ways diligently care for and protect the citrus trees and fruit growing thereon'; and the mortgage lien is to secure payment for 'cash advances made, supplies furnished and services rendered' by the mortgagee, who agreed 'to furnish * * * for use on the trees such fertilizer, spray material and insecticides as shall be * * * necessary * * * for protecting fruit on all trees.' The question presented is whether under the Constitution the wife must join the husband in mortgaging fruit growing upon the homestead.
The constitution provides that homestead 'real estate shall not be alienable without the joint consent of husband and wife, where that relation exists.'
A mortgage given only upon a crop of oranges that is growing on the homestead real estate is not in law an alienation of the 'real estate,' within the meaning and intent of the organic provision. Bearing orange trees are not planted annually, but unless the trees are properly cultivated fertilized, sprayed, and otherwise cared for, the annual fruit crop is indifferent and annually becomes less and less profitable. In Summerlin v. Orange Shores, Inc., 97 Fla. 996, 1004, 122 So. 508, 511, it is said:
'Since fruits of trees, such as peaches, apples, and other fruits, depend so much upon yearly cultivation and labor, including spraying for insects which attack and destroy the fruit, the yearly products of such perennial plants and trees are considered as chattels, while the tree itself is regarded as part of the realty.'
Even though trees are fructus naturales, the annual fruit of the trees, if mainly produced by cultivation, manuring, and personal attention, may be fructus industriales. 8 Am. & Eng Law (2d Ed.) 303. Where a mortgage is given upon a growing citrus fruit crop for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owen v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...fruit alone, the fruit is regarded as personalty. Haines City Citrus Growers v. Petteway, 107 Fla. 344, 145 So. 183; Gentile Brothers v. Bryan, 101 Fla. 233, 133 So. 630. These cases are consistent with the general rule, however, upon the theory that execution of such a mortgage constitutes......
-
Hughes v. Summit Realty Co.
... ... lien of the defendant the Adams Packing Company, Inc., ... complainant appeals ... Affirmed ... [120 Fla. 136] ... following cases, while not in point, support this view: ... Gentile Bros., Inc., v. Bryan, 101 Fla. 233, 133 So ... 630; Bryan et al. v ... ...
- Redstone v. Redstone Lumber & Supply Co.
-
Weber v. Belle Mead Development Corp.
... ... 559, 47 So. 936; Summerlin v. Orange Shores, ... [112 Fla. 370] Inc., 97 Fla. 996, 122 So. 508, text ... 511; Gentile Bros. v. Bryan, 101 ... ...