Micou v. Mcdonald

• Decision Date: 07 April 1908
• Parties: MICOU et al. v. McDONALD.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

46 So. 291

55 Fla. 776

MICOU et al. v. McDONALD.

Florida Supreme Court

April 7, 1908

In Banc. Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Minor S Jones, Judge.

Bill by D. A. McDonald against Ella A. P. Micou and others. Decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded,

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

The effect of section 2 of article 11 of the Constitution of Florida is to remove from married women, under carefully limited restrictions, the common-law disability of coverture in the cases therein specifically enumerated, and to enable her in such cases to assume obligations that can be charged in equity upon, and enforced out of, her separate property owned by her in her own individual right.

(1) It enables her to purchase property either real or personal, and to obligate herself for the purchase price thereof.

(2) It enables her by an agreement in writing made by her to obligate hereself for the payment of money or thing of value when the same enures to the benefit of her separate property.

(3) It enables her to obligate herself for the price of any labor or material used with her knowledge or consent in the construction of buildings, repairs, or improvements upon her property, or for agricultural or other labor bestowed thereon with her knowledge and consent. And said section specifies the forum, viz., a court of equity, in which such obligations may be charged upon and enforced out of her separate property, either by a sale thereof, or by the sequestration of the uses, rents, and profits thereof.

The test of jurisdiction of a court of equity over a bill filed to enforce a claim against the separate property of a married woman is, does the bill present such an obligation of a married woman as the Constitution authorizes a court of equity to deal with and enforce? Such newly extended jurisdiction of the court of equity over the obligations of married women must be confined to the cases specifically defined by the Constitution.

Whether a claim by a real estate broker for commissions for effecting a sale of a married woman's separate real estate can ever be properly construed to be for money 'that enures to the benefit of her separate property,' quaere. However the answer to this may be, held, that such a claim cannot in any event be enforced against a married woman's separate property in equity when it is not evidenced by an agreement in writing made by such married woman.

Where it is apparent to an appellate court that a bill in equity carried to it on appeal makes no case of which a court of equity has jurisdiction, it is proper for it to order a dismissal of the bill for want of equity, even though its equity be not questioned by the pleadings or expressly presented.

Decree reversed.

COUNSEL

Wm. H. Jewell, for appellants.

Jones &amp Jones, for appellee.

OPINION

TAYLOR J.

The appellee, D. A. McDonald, filed his bill in equity in the circuit court of Orange county against the appellants hereinafter referred to as the defendants, alleging in substance: That the defendant Ella A. P. Micou was the wife of the defendant Benjamin Micou, and that she as her separate estate, was lately seised of a tract of land in Orange county containing 800 acres, and that she through her said husband did engage and employ complainant to sell the same for her for the sum of $5,500, and did agree with him to pay for his services in effecting said sale the sum of $550. That said contract was in writing, and was made with the full consent and approval of the said Ella A. P. Micou, and said alleged contract is attached to the bill and therein referred to as Exhibits A, B, and C. These exhibits consist of letters signed only by Benjamin Micou addressed to the complainant, and they do not even pretend on their face to have been written with either her knowledge or consent. That complainant in consequence of said contract did, in the month of August, 1905, sell the said land for the said sum of $5,500, and that a deed to the purchasers thereof was executed by the said Micous husband and wife and forwarded to the defendant the state bank of Orlando for delivery upon payment of the purchase money, and with instructions to said bank to pay to complainant the agreed sum of $550 out of such purchase money when collected, but which instructions were subsequently countermanded by them. That the said purchase price of $5,500 was paid by the purchasers to said bank, and that at the time of the filing of the bill the said bank still held the same. That the said sum of $550 was due the complainant, and was a just and true charge upon the separate estate of said feme covert defendant, under a written contract for services rendered for the benefit of her separate estate. That said Micous have conspired and confederated to injure and defraud him. That said purchase money now held by said defendant bank will be paid over to said Micous unless said bank is restrained from so paying over the same. That said Micous are nonresidents of Florida, and have no other property in this state out of which he can enforce or collect his said claim except said purchase money of said land then held by said bank. The bill prays that the Micous may be required under the order of the court to pay to complainant what may be justly due him, and that they be restrained and enjoined from receiving said moneys from said bank or any part thereof, and that said bank be restrained from paying over the same or any part thereof. The bill also prays for subpoena and for general relief. Temporary injunction was granted ex parte as prayed. The defendants answered the bill, denying the indebtedness, and alleging that the letters exhibited with the bill were written without knowledge of the fact afterwards discovered by them that the complainant in pretending to sell said land to the purchasers thereof was in fact the agent for the purchasers...