Palm Beach Estates v. Croker
| Decision Date | 03 August 1933 |
| Citation | 111 Fla. 671,152 So. 416 |
| Parties | PALM BEACH ESTATES et al. v. CROKER et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
On Rehearing Jan. 16, 1934.
1. Where a decree has been affirmed and the merits of the cause passed on by this court, and such decree modified only as to certain amounts with specific instructions to the court below as to its modification, the merits of the cause will not again be considered. The court will determine only the question of a compliance with its mandate.
2. Public policy requires that a term be put to litigation, and that judgments, as solemn records upon which valuable rights should not lightly be disturbed or overthrown.
3. Judgments of a legally organized tribunal, proceeding within the scope of its allotted powers, with jurisdiction over the subject-matter and the parties thereto, whether correct or erroneous, cannot be called in question by the parties or privies in any collateral action or proceeding.
4. Justice does not permit a party to a suit to voluntarily approbate a decree and subsequently, upon finding that he cannot perform, reprobate the decree for the one purpose of being relieved of his obligation under the decree.
5. The law will not permit one to receive benefits from a decree by reason of his acquiescence therein, and recognition of its validity, and then complain of its terms. Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County C. E. Chillingworth, judge.
En Banc.Suit by Bula E. Croker and others against the Palm Beach Estates and another. From a modified final decree and from an order striking defendants' petition for repayment to them of a deposit in the registry of the court, defendants appeal.
Order striking the petition affirmed, and modified final decree affirmed with directions.
See also, 146 So. 230; 149 So. 343.
Fleming Hamilton, Diver & Lichliter, of Jacksonville, for appellant.
Fancher, Paty & Warwick, of West Palm Beach, for appellee Bula E. Croker.
Treadwell & Treadwell, of Arcadia, and Wideman, Wideman & Wardlaw, of West Palm Beach, for other appellees.
John B. Singeltary, of Bradenton, intervener.
Bula E Croker, widow of Richard Croker, brought a bill of complaint against Palm Beach Estates, a corporation, and J. B. McDonald, to have canceled a trust agreement between Bula E. Croker and her then living husband, Richard Croker, and J. B. McDonald, whereby lands conveyed in trust by the Crokers to McDonald could be purchased by McDonald or his assigns. By an answer and counterclaim, Palm Beach Estates and J. B. McDonald, upon appropriate averments and the deposit into the registry of the court of the first cash payment on the purchase price of the land and a similar deposit of notes and a mortgage for the remainder of the purchase price under the contract of purchase, prayed an enforced compliance by Mrs. Croker with the right of McDonald or his assignee to purchase the land, McDonald having conveyed to Palm Beach Estates the title to the lands together with a transfer of the contract right to purchase the lands. The court decreed Palm Beach Estates, the assignee of J. B. McDonald, to be entitled to an enforcement of the contract right to purchase, which contract did not provide for forfeiture of partial payments made, should the property be purchased by McDonald or his assignees and full payments be not duly made. See Croker v. Palm Beach Estates, 94 Fla. 171, 114 So. 225, as to rulings on pleadings and Palm Beach Estates et al. v. Croker (Fla.) 143 So. 792, affirming with modifications as to interest payments a final decree rendered August 21, 1929, in favor of the defendants. Subsequently Mrs. Croker filed an offer to perform and an acceptance of the money in the registry of the court, but it has not been paid to her, the modified final decree providing thus:
'The cash on hand in the registry of the Court, the cash to be paid by the defendants, notes numbered four (4) and five (5), and the mortgage to be executed and delivered by the defendants, shall be held by the Clerk of the Circuit Court until and subject to further order of the Court.'
The modified final decree rendered November 17, 1932, pursuant to the opinion of this court (143 So. 792), adjudicated in effect that the defendants J. B. McDonald and Palm Beach Estates shall, among other things, pay, and that the complainant Bula E. Croker shall accept the amount in the registry of the court, viz.:
'Three Hundred Twenty One Thousand One Hundred Four and 73/100 Dollars ($321,104.73) heretofore paid by the defendants and voluntarily accepted by the complainant, October 31, in 1932, now in the registry of the court, which sum shall hereafter be held by the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the use and benefit of the complainant, subject to the further provisions of these modifications of the final decree.' Also 'Two Hundred Eight Thousand Three Hundred Sixty One and 27/100 Dollars ($208,361.27) to be paid in cash representing the balance due and unpaid on the initial payment of the purchase price.'
The two amounts being the initial payment on the contract of purchase. Numerous other payments were decreed and notes and mortgage were required to be executed to Mrs. Croker. Upon full compliance with the decree by defendants, the complainant and her privies would be enjoined to claim and lands against the defendants. The modified final decree contains the following:
'12th. The aggregate of the sums above recited, together with said notes and mortgage, having been paid and delivered by defendants to the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the use and benefit of complainant, Bula E. Croker, in accordance with the terms of this decree, the Clerk of the Circuit Court shall forthwith report the same to the Court. The cash on hand in the registry of the Court, the cash to be paid by the defendants, notes numbered four (4) and five (5), and the mortgage to be executed and delivered by the defendants, shall be held by the Clerk of the Circuit Court until and subject to further order of the Court.
An appeal was taken by the defendants from the modified final decree.
The litigation and the adjudications in the lower court and in this court proceeded upon the theory that either Mrs. Croker was entitled to a cancellation of the conveyances and the contract executed by the Crokers to McDonald or that McDonald and his assignee were entitled to have the title to the lands quieted in them upon complying with the terms of the purchase as an entirety under the contract.
By the terms of the modified final decree the clerk of the court is required to hold the money in the registry of the court and to receive the other cash sums required to be paid on the purchase price of the lands as also the notes and mortgage to be executed for the balance of the purchase price, and to hold all such sums and instruments 'until and subject to the further order of the court.' The entire proceedings contemplate and the adjudications require the tender by the defendants and acceptance by Mrs. Croker of the stated payments in cash and in notes secured by mortgage to be accomplished as an entire single transaction. There is no provision in the contract or in the decree for forfeitures of initial or other payments for failure to duly and fully comply with the terms of the contract under the decree.
On October 31, 1932, Mrs. Croker filed a petition containing the following:
'Your Petitioner, Bula E. Croker, hereby voluntarily agrees to specifically perform the covenants, agreements and stipulations upon her part undertaken to be done and performed by the provisions of the contract of July 12, 1920, for the benefit of Palm Beach Estates, a corporation, and J. B. McDonald, and your Petitioner, hereby voluntarily accepts and agrees to accept the Five Hundred Twenty-Nine Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-six Dollars ($52,466.00) paid to the Clerk of this Court or into the registry of this Court, or so much thereof as now remains, as part payment, and the other monies to be paid and the notes and mortgage tendered and fixed directed and decreed by the opinion of the Supreme Court herein and as will be fixed and decreed by this Court in accordance therewith by its modified and final decree.'
The modified final decree dated November 17, 1932, did not decree the money in the registry of the court to be paid to Mrs Croker, except as a part of a complete performance of the decree for specific performance, but required the clerk to receive and hold further payments and the notes and mortgage as decreed to be paid and executed by the defendants together with the funds in the registry of the court, 'until and subject to the further order of the court.' Until the decreed amounts as payments have been paid to the clerk, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial