Green v. Putnam
| Decision Date | 06 March 1957 |
| Citation | 93 So.2d 378 |
| Parties | Alvin T. GREEN, Appellant, v. Jack H. PUTNAM et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Andrew L. Kennedy, Miami, for appellant.
Byrd V. Duke, Jr., Miami, for appellees.
Green, the appellant, was plaintiff in the court below. Putnam, the appellee, was one of the defendants. It is unnecessary to mention the other defendants or their interest in the proceedings or in the property involved herein.
It appears from the pleadings in this cause that Green and Putnam in October 1952 entered into a verbal agreement whereunder the parties were to construct, for sale, a residence building on a lot owned by Putnam and his wife. Putnam was to furnish not only the lot but also the necessary finances. Green was to supervise and act as working foreman in the construction. The parties were to share equally the profits from the sale of the residence. It was contemplated that a written partnership agreement would be executed and that the parties would build four other houses on lots to be procured by Putnam.
In his amended complaint Green claims that Putnam on about December 8, 1952 repudiated the oral agreement and refused to execute the partnership agreement, and that as a result thereof he, Green, refused to proceed further with the construction of the residence which was not then completed. In his answer Putnam claims that Green breached the agreement by refusing to proceed with the construction.
On December 12, 1952 Green, pursuant to F.S. Chapter 84, F.S.A., filed a claim of lien on the lot in question and thereafter filed this suit in chancery praying in the alternative that he be found to have either a mechanic's lien or an equitable lien for the reasonable value of his services and monies advanced in the improvement of said lot.
Green further alleged that he had not received any portion of the profits from sale of the building and had not been compensated for his services or for certain monies advanced by him. It appears that the building had been completed and sold by Putnam to one of the defendants not named in this opinion.
The cause came on for final hearing before the chancellor, and after hearing a part of the evidence offered by the plaintiff, Green, the chancellor terminated the trial and entered an order dismissing the cause.
In his order of dismissal the chancellor recited that it appeared from the testimony of the plaintiff, himself, that:
1. the arrangement whereby plaintiff performed the labor on the defendant Putnam's land was a 'profit-sharing joint enterprise';
2. the business affairs and finances of said enterprise were under the exclusive management and control of the defendant Putnam, the plaintiff being the working foreman engaged solely in the actual construction of the building; and
3. there was no agreement between the parties for the sharing of losses of the transaction.
The chancellor concluded that the relation between the parties appeared to be a profit-sharing joint enterprise, and that such relation was not compatible or consistent with the existence of a mechanic's lien under the Florida Statute. He refused to receive further evidence, including evidence of the reasonable value of plaintiff's services, and terminated the trial. His order of dismissal was with prejudice.
It was error for the chancellor to dismiss the bill for at least two reasons.
First, the plaintiff prayed for relief in the alternative. He sought either a mechanic's lien or an equitable lien. Assuming, but not deciding that the plaintiff was not entitled to a mechanic's lien for the reasons cited by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re University Drive Professional Complex, Inc.
...Boyd v. Hunter, 104 Fla. 561, 140 So. 666 (1932). Furthermore, if one party has exclusive control there is no joint venture. Green v. Putnum, 93 So.2d 378 (Fla.1957). It is apodictic that the mere right to share in profits does not create a joint venture. Coral Gables Security Corp. v. Miam......
-
Crane Co. v. Fine, 37748
...and is not entitled to seek an equitable lien, they are in direct conflict with Palmer v Edwards, Fla.1951, 51 So.2d 495; Green v. Putnam, Fla.1957, 93 So.2d 378; Tucker v. Prevatt Buildings, Inc., Fla.App.1st 1959, 116 So.2d 437, 438; and Dewing v. Davis, Fla.App.2d 1960, 117 So.2d 747. Se......
-
Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 55345
...principle of law can constitute grounds for reversal. E. g., Aronson v. Siquier, 318 So.2d 452 (3d DCA Fla. 1975); Green v. Putnam, 93 So.2d 378 (Fla.1957); Knight v. City of Miami, 127 Fla. 585, 173 So. 801 The trial court's imposition of a constructive trust could well be supported by evi......
-
Armstrong v. Blackadar
...a lien at law. Equitable liens become necessary on account of the absence of similar remedies at law. * * *.' In the case of Green v. Putnam, Fla., 93 So.2d 378, 380, the court '(1-3) First, the plaintiff prayed for relief in the alternative. He sought either a mechanic's lien or an equitab......