Phifer v. Steenburg
Decision Date | 06 January 1914 |
Citation | 64 So. 265,66 Fla. 563 |
Parties | PHIFER v. STEENBURG et al. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
On Application for Rehearing, Jan. 27, 1914.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Alachua County; Wills, Judge.
Bill by William Phifer against Arthur O. Steenburg and others. From an order sustaining demurrer to bill, complainant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff
Syllabus by the Court
Where there is a contract of sale of land by a government designation, stating the quantity to be 3,500 acres, more or less, and where it is alleged in a bill filed by the purchaser of the land to obtain an abatement of the purchase price because of a deficiency of 540 acres, and where it is alleged in the bill that, when the purchase was made, the vendor's agent assured the purchaser that he well knew the lands, that they embraced in the aggregate 3,500 acres and that the vendors would make a good title to that many acres, and it is also alleged in the bill that the vendee did not know the number of acres, and had no notice of any deficiency, and relied entirely upon the assurance of the vendor's agent, a demurrer to said bill on the ground that there is no equity in the bill should not have been sustained.
Hampton & Hampton, of Gainesville, for appellant.
W. S Broome, of Gainesville, for appellees.
Appellant filed an amended bill of complaint in the circuit court of Alachua county, alleging, in substance, that Alfred C. Steenburg, the owner of certain lands in Alachua county, and his wife, on the 23d of July, 1906, by Arthur O. Steenburg, his authorized attorney in fact, entered into an agreement in writing with Phifer, which is attached to and made a part of the original bill, in the following words and figures:
This contract was properly acknowledged.
It is alleged that Arthur O. Steenburg acted under the following power of attorney:
'A. C. Steenburg and Wife to Arthur Steenburg.
'Power of Attorney.
'In testimony whereof we have hereunto set our hands and seals this 29th day of June, A. D. 1906.
'Signed, sealed, and delivered in presence of
'Clyde Steenburg.
'Samuel Jack.'
This power of attorney was properly acknowledged.
The bill alleges that Phifer executed the four promissory notes of $2,500 each described in the contract of sale as the consideration for said lands; that A. O. Steenburg, acting as attorney in fact, assured orator that he well knew the said lands, and that they contained 3,500 or more acres, and that he would make a good title to that many acres; that orator, not knowing himself, but relying solely on the assurance of A. O. Steenburg, as agent, agreed to purchase said lands, and give his four notes aggregating $10,000, the purchase price thereof; that, since the contract of sale was executed, he has had the lands surveyed, and that there is a shortage of 530 acres, and gives the sections, townships, and ranges where the shortages occur. The bill alleges that the purchase price of $10,000 was fixed by the said alleged acreage of 3,500 acres at so much per acre, and not in gross.
The bill alleges that orator has paid three of said notes, and has offered to pay so much of the fourth note as will be due after deducting the amount created by the deficiency of acreage at the price per acre as shown by the contract; that appellees refuse to accept the amount thus alleged to be due but insist upon full payment of the last note of $2,500; the shortage is alleged to be 540 acres; that orator is now ready and willing...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cohen v. Blank
...593, 46 A.2d 337 (1946); Delaware, Webster v. Palm Beach Ocean Realty Co., 16 Del.Ch. 15, 139 A. 457 (1927); Florida, Phifer v. Steenburg, 66 Fla. 555, 64 So. 265 (1914); Georgia, Puckett v. Reese, 203 Ga. 716, 48 S.E.2d 297 (1948); Hawaii, Wong Chan v. Ah Yong, 9 Haw. 346 (1893); Idaho, Or......
-
Aiello v. Ed Saxe Real Estate, Inc.
...593, 46 A.2d 337 (1946); Delaware, Webster v. Palm Beach Ocean Realty Co., 16 Del.Ch. 15, 139 A. 457 (1927); Florida, Phifer v. Steenburg, 66 Fla. 555, 64 So. 265 (1914); Georgia, Puckett v. Reese, 203 Ga. 716, 48 S.E.2d 297 (1948); Hawaii, Wong Chan v. Ah Yong, 9 Haw. 346 (1893); Idaho, Or......
-
Plantation Key Developers, Inc. v. Colonial Mortg. Co. of Indiana, Inc.
...deceive may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Thompson, 93 Fla. 30, 111 So. 525 (1927); Phifer v. Steenburg, 66 Fla. 555, 64 So. 265, Rehearing denied, 64 So. 265 (1914) (deficiency in acreage, as represented by the seller, may be so large as to raise infer......
-
J. J. White Lumber Co. v. McComb City Turpentine Co.
...63 S.E. 428, 132 Am. St. Rep. 904; Hodges et al. v. Denny, 86 Ala. 226, 5 So. 492; 39 Cyc. 1314; Phifer v. Steenburg et al, 66 Fla. 555, 64 So. 265. In view of these conclusions, the case is reversed as to that part of the decree for the one thousand, four hundred and eleven acres of timber......