Larnel Builders, Inc. v. Nicholas, 59-739
Decision Date | 22 September 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 59-739,59-739 |
Citation | 123 So.2d 284 |
Parties | LARNEL BUILDERS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. John NICHOLAS, Trustee in Bankruptcy of C. B. S. Excavators, Inc., Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Dubbin, Schiff, Berkman & Dubbin, Miami, for appellant.
Worton & Cline, Miami, for appellee.
Appellee filed a claim of lien against certain properties owned by appellant claiming a sum due on two written contracts entered into by appellant and appellee plus an additional amount for extra work and equipment rental. Prior to any action being taken to enforce said lien, appellant filed a bond under the provisions of 84.24 F.S.A. transferring the security of realty to bond. Appellee then proceeded in equity with an action to foreclose said lien. Appellant moved that the action be transferred to the law side of the court which was denied. Then appellant answered and filed a counterclaim. The trial court allowed the full amount of the lien less a set-off based on one of the counts in said counterclaim and entered a final decree for appellee. It is from that final decree that this appeal is taken.
Appellant first contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion to transfer the cause to the law side of the court. This contention is without merit. See Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. D. N. Morrison Construction Company, 99 Fla. 309, 126 So. 151; Granat v. Dulbs, 100 Fla. 1145, 130 So. 464; Milgrim v. Kinser, Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 371.
Appellant next contends that lower court erred in admitting into evidence testimony and exhibits to show a parol contract for the extras and equipment rental claimed in said lien where the said written contracts contained this provision:
'The parties agree that this instrument represents the entire agreement between them and that there are no representations or inducements other than those set forth herein, and that this agreement cannot be altered, modified or amended except by an instrument in writing signed between the parties hereto.'
This contention is also without merit. In Professional Insurance Corporation v. Cahill, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 916, 917, the Supreme Court of Florida stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Okeechobee Resorts, L.L.C. v. E Z Cash Pawn, Inc.
...252 So.2d 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Long Key Corp. v. Willis–Burch, Inc., 133 So.2d 655 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961); Larnel Builders, Inc. v. Nicholas, 123 So.2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). Other decisions, however, have muddied the waters a bit. Some have casually remarked that an oral modification of a......
-
McCarty v. Dade Division of American Hospital Supply
...32 Fla. 363, 13 So. 873 (1895); H. I. Resorts, Inc. v. Touchton, 337 So.2d 854 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); and Larnel Builders, Inc. v. Nicholas, 123 So.2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). ...
-
Wiener v. Wiener
...thereunder or orally modify same. Professional Insurance Corporation v. Cahill, 90 So.2d 916 (Fla.1956); Larnel Builders, Inc. v. Nicholas, 123 So.2d 284 (Fla.3rd D.C.A.1960); Doral Country Club, Inc. v. Curcie Brothers, Inc., 174 So.2d 749 (Fla.3rd Therefore, the order under review be and ......
-
Doral Country Club, Inc. v. Curcie Bros., Inc., 64-545
...Fla.App.1962, 144 So.2d 533; Broderick v. Overhead Door Co. of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.App.1959, 117 So.2d 240; Larnel Builders v. Nicholas, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 284. The evidence adequately supports the findings of the chancellor. No useful purpose would be served by a detailed review of t......