White v. Exchange Corp., 63-350
| Decision Date | 07 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 63-350,63-350 |
| Citation | 167 So.2d 324 |
| Parties | Robert R. WHITE and Leonora P. Baruch, Appellants, v. The EXCHANGE CORPORATION, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert R. White, Miami, for appellants.
Robert M. Palmer, Miami Beach, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and TILLMAN PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.
Appellants, defendants in the trial court, appeal a declaratory decree rendered against them adjudicating them liable to the appellee in the sum of $6,000.00.
It appears, from the record, that this controversy arose out of a letter dated May 17, 1962, which reads as follows:
Re: Mortgage from Key Marble, Inc to Mr and Mrs. Baruch
Dear Mr. Jackman:
'Receipt is hereby acknowledged of the sum of Six Thousand ($6,000.00) dollars, by check subject to collection, to apply against-the principal and interest payment on the above captioned mortgage that was due at the end of the grace period after April 22, 1962.
It is hereby agreed that if Key Marble fails to pay the balance ($7,000.00), plus Five Hundred ($500.00) on [signed] R. White or before June 6, 1962, then Mr. and Mrs. Baruch are to retain the Six Thousand ($6,000.00) Dollars this day paid. The purpose of the $500.00 is to cover additional interest accrued and for attorneys fees incurred when this matter was turned over to this office for collection.
Very truly yours,
[s] Robert R. White
the terms of the above are accepted for Key Marble, Inc., by the undersigned as its attorney.
[s] George L. Jackman
George L. Jackman' Accompanying this letter was a check for $6,000.00, made payable to Robert R. White and drawn by The Exchange Corporation. At the time the letter was executed, Key Marble, Inc. [represented by Jackman] was in default on a note secured by a mortgage given to parties named Baruch [who were represented by White]. Subsequent to the June 6, 1962 date referred to in the above-quoted letter, the Baruchs foreclosed their mortgage against Key Marble, Inc., which resulted in a foreclosure decree without any credit being given to Key Marble, Inc., for the payment of the $6,000.00. Thereafter, The Exchange Corporation brought the instant action, based upon a breach of the letter agreement because of the failure of the Baruchs to give a credit for the $6,000.00 in the foreclosure proceeding. We reversed.
The Exchange Corporation was never a party to the letter agreement, which extended the grace period of the mortgage. Its funds were delivered to White ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MDS(Canada), Inc. v. Rad Source Techs., Inc.
...'255 Patent, from Rad Source that Best allegedly suffered as a result of a breach of the License Agreement. See White v. Exch. Corp., 167 So.2d 324, 326 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964) (“[i]t is elementary that a person not a party to nor in privy with a contract does not have the right to sue for its b......
-
Super Vision Intern. v. Mega Intern. Commercial
...alleged such an assignment, Super has not alleged that it was in privy to the contract between Mega and Wu. See White v. Exchange Corp., 167 So.2d 324, 326 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964) ("It is elementary that a person not a party to nor in privy with a contract does not have the right to [sue] for it......
-
Cibran Enterprises v. Bp Products North America
...that a person not a party to nor in privy with a contract does not have the right to sue for its breach." White v. Exchange Corp., 167 So.2d 324, 326 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964) (citations omitted). As the November 28, 2000 assignment to Cibran was ineffective, Cibran lacks standing to sue for breac......
-
Gables Ins. Recovery, Inc. v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., s. 3D15-2320 & 3D16-87
...were not valid, then as a non-party to the insurance contracts Gables Recovery would have no right to sue. See White v. Exch. Corp., 167 So.2d 324, 326 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964) ("It is elementary that a person not a party to nor in privy with a contract does not have the right to sue for its brea......