South Florida Citrus Land Co. v. Walden

• Decision Date: 02 February 1910
• Citation: 51 So. 554,59 Fla. 606
• Parties: SOUTH FLORIDA CITRUS LAND CO. v. WALDEN.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

51 So. 554

59 Fla. 606

SOUTH FLORIDA CITRUS LAND CO. v. WALDEN.

Florida Supreme Court

February 2, 1910

In Banc. Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; M. S. Jones Judge.

Bill by Walter Walden against the South Florida Citrus Land Company. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Where an option in writing is given for the purchase of real estate, a tender of the purchase price within the specified time makes mutuality in the contract relations of the parties.

In a contract for the sale of land, the description of the land is sufficient when it is 'all land owned by the said' vendor 'located west and north of the South fork of the Miami river and in' stated sections, township, and range in a named county of the state, as by such a description the land may be definitely located.

An improper specific prayer of a bill of complaint as to damages will not destroy equities admitted by a demurrer.

Impertinent portions of an answer in equity are properly eliminated upon exceptions thereto.

COUNSEL Geo. M. Robbins, for appellant.

Hudson & Boggs and R. B. Goutier, for appellee.

OPINION

WHITFIELD C.J.

The appellee brought a bill in equity in the circuit court for Dade county against the appellant for the specific performance of an agreement to convey lands 'free of all incumbrance whatsoever.' The bill of complaint alleges that pursuant to an option in writing, made an exhibit to the bill, the complainant within the time specified in the option tendered the purchase price and demanded a conveyance of the land which was refused. A demurrer to the bill of complaint was overruled. The answer of the defendant admits that the land is covered by a mortgage as alleged in the bill of complaint, and admits the option agreement, but denies the validity of the option contract, because the defendant had previously made a deed conveying to another person the land. It appears, however that the deed was not delivered. The answer also contains averments that the person in whose name the previous deed was made out had conveyed a part of the land to another, who is able, ready, and willing to pay for the land; that the mortgagee is willing to release to the other purchaser, but not to the complainant; that the contract to convey to the other person was prior in date to the option given complainant, and that the option to complainant was given while the president of the defendant 'was ill and in no condition to consider or enter into business contracts for this defendant'; and defendant is not able to perform the option contract because of the mortgage incumbrance on the land. The court sustained exceptions to the portions of the answer denying the validity of the option, and to the averments of a conveyance of the land to and by others, and the willingness of the mortgagee to release to another...