Hurst v. National Bond & Inv. Co.

• Decision Date: 10 July 1928
• Citation: 117 So. 792,96 Fla. 148
• Parties: HURST et al. v. NATIONAL BOND & INVESTMENT CO.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

117 So. 792

96 Fla. 148

HURST et al. v. NATIONAL BOND & INVESTMENT CO.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

July 10, 1928

Suit by the National Bond & Investment Company against James D. Hurst and others, as copartners formerly trading and doing business under the firm name and style of the Hurst Motor Company. From an order overruling a demurrer to the bill of complaint defendants appeal.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

In absence of fraud, equity will grant relief for unilateral mistake only where mistaken party offers to put other in status quo. In the absence of fraud, relief will be granted in equity on ground of a unilateral mistake, where the mistaken party offers to put the other party in status quo the theory being that the minds of the parties have never met in consummation of a trade under the actual existing conditions.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Johns County; George William Jackson, judge.

COUNSEL

George W. Bassett, of St. Augustine, for appellants.

Baker Baker & Rutherford and Martin Sack, all of Jacksonville, for appellee.

OPINION

BUFORD J.

In this case bill was filed to rescind a contract and to place the parties in the identical position which was occupied prior to the making of the contract.

The contract referred to was the sale, assignment, transfer, and delivery of a certain retain title contract and note attached thereto. The bill alleged as grounds for the rescission of the contract of assignment that the property described in the retain title contract was never delivered to, or in possession of, the vendee who executed that contract, and that the property described in the contract had, prior to the execution of that contract, been sold and delivered by the vendor to another person who was a stranger to all the transactions between the parties in this suit. The bill alleged that the defendant represented to the complainant that the property described in the contract was in the possession of the vendee named in the contract, and that it was a valid contract retaining the title to the property described therein; that such representations were false and untrue, but that the complainant believed them to be true, and, relying upon the truth of such representations, bought the contract and notes, and took an assignment thereof without recourse.

Under this state of facts, there being no allegation in the bill of complaint that the defendant knowingly and intentionally made false representations, the bill of complaint does not allege such a state of facts as to show that the plaintiff has an adequate, clear, certain, and complete remedy at law. Allen v. United Zinc Co., 64 Fla. 171, 60 So. 182. It will also be observed that the contract and notes were assigned and transferred without recourse. In view of these facts, it appears that a general demurrer to the bill of complaint should have been overruled. The bill appears to be brought to relieve against the...