Hughes v. Palmer
| Decision Date | 14 October 1931 |
| Citation | 137 So. 9,103 Fla. 91 |
| Parties | HUGHES et ux. v. PALMER et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Seminole County; W. W. Wright, Judge.
Action by W. H. Hughes and wife against Honoré Palmer and another as trustees under the will of Bertha Honoré Palmer, deceased. Judgment for the defendants, and the plaintiffs bring error.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court.
In the trial of the cause, it is immaterial whether evidence favorable to the defendants and unfavorable to the plaintiffs comes from the witnesses produced by the plaintiffs or from witnesses produced by the defendants.
Evidence examined, and found sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment.
Ernest F. Householder, of Sanford, for plaintiffs in error.
John F. Burket and Francis C. Dart, both of Sarasota, for defendants in error.
In this case the plaintiffs in the court below, plaintiffs in error here, sued the defendants in common counts to recover money paid as the initial payment on the purchase of certain lands in Sarasota county, Fla. There was no evidence to support the first or second count of the declaration, and the court properly excluded those counts from the consideration of the jury. Counts 3 and 4 were submitted to the jury with the evidence under proper charges as to the law applicable to the case. The defendants introduced no testimony. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants upon which judgment was entered and to which writ of error was taken.
In the trial of the cause , it is immaterial whether evidence favorable to the defendants and unfavorable to the plaintiffs comes from the witnesses produced by the plaintiffs or from witnesses produced by the defendants.
In this case for the plaintiffs to recover it was necessary that they show to the satisfaction of the jury that the contract was abandoned by the defendants or that the defendants, the plaintiffs not being in default, refused to perform the contract, provided the plaintiffs proved the existence of the contract with the defendants.
From the evidence the jury might properly have assumed that a contract existed between the plaintiffs and defendants, by reason of the ratification by the defendants of a contract entered into with the plaintiffs by a real estate broker who was offering for sale the lands of the defendants.
The evidence shows that one of the plaintiffs went upon the lands before entering into the contract and making the initial purchase, and that he had every opportunity to determine whether or not the lands were suitable for the purposes for which he wanted them and were as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Langmead v. Admiral Cruises, Inc.
...issue properly submitted to jury upon plaintiff's evidence which was susceptible of different interpretations); Hughes v. Palmer, 103 Fla. 91, 137 So. 9 (1931) ("[I]t is immaterial whether evidence favorable to the defendants and unfavorable to the plaintiffs comes from the witnesses produc......
-
Ruiz v. Huddle
...money paid in part performance of an executory contract. Beatty v. Flannery, 49 So.2d 81, 82 (Fla.1950). See also, Hughes v. Palmer, 103 Fla. 91, 137 So. 9 (1931); Cf. Mayer v. First Nat. Co. of Sarasota, 99 Fla. 173, 125 So. 909 (1930). A buyer cannot maintain an action against his seller ......
- Snell Isle, Inc. v. Avery