ORANGE STATE OIL COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION,
v.
L. E. CROSBY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Orange State Oil Company appeals a decree reforming a lease with L. E. Crosby. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's reformation of the lease despite the appellant's claims that the agent lacked authority to bind the company except in writing and that the statute of frauds barred the relief.
The Court affirmed the reformation of the lease, holding that the statute of frauds does not bar reformation proceedings and that an agent's apparent authority to manage the business is sufficient to bind the principal when the agent places the other party in possession and induces substantial reliance and investment.
“Assuming that Sherwood was not clothed with actual authority to make a lease, other than in the written form generally used by the company, the fact is that he was appellant's local manager who presumably possessed the usual powers and exercised the usual authority of managing such a business.”
Establishes that even without actual authority, the agent's apparent authority as a local manager is sufficient to bind the principal in reformation cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOrange State Oil Company's local manager, Sherwood, placed Crosby in possession of a filling station and assured him a five-year lease would be grante…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reformation Of Lease cases and more on FLexlaw
This case has been before us once. (158 Fla. 551, 29 So. (2nd) 634). We upheld the legal sufficiency of the bill. Thereafter the appellant answered. On motion certain parts of the answer were stricken. The case was then referred to a master who took testimony and made findings for the appellee and recommended a decree accordingly. The chancellor reviewed the evidence upon .appellant’s exceptions and entered a decree for appellee reforming the lease as prayed in the bill.
On this appeal the order striking parts of the answer is brought in question as well as the final decree on the merits. Most of the stricken parts of the answer set forth that the appellant’s agent, Sherwood, was without authority to make any contract other than in the written form; that appellee had ample time to read and inform himself of the contents of the lease and also that the relief could not be granted because of the statute of frauds. Section 725.01, Fla. Stat., 1941, F.S.A.
Appellant relies on recent decisions, as well as many of the older ones, to the effect that a motion to strike may not be used to test the legal sufficiency of the answer. Robertson v. Dunne, 45 Fla. 553, 33 So. 530; Holzendorf v. Terrell, 52 Fla. *666525, 42 So. 584; Schupler v. Eastern Mortgage Company, 160 Fla. 72, 33 So. (2nd) 586. Even though the attack was by motion we will not hold the error harmful so long as the stricken parts would not have altered the equities of the case and that is our view.
Assuming that Sherwood was not clothed with actual authority to make a lease, other than in the written form generally used by the company, the fact is that he was appellant’s local manager who presumably possessed the usual powers and exercised the usual authority of managing such a business. Pursuant to the performance of his apparent authority, he placed appellee in possession of the filling station and caused him to invest considerable money which quite obviously would not have been done if the agent had correctly informed him of the written lease which would later be submitted to him. This part of the answer would not then constitute a bar to the relief sought. If it could be said that it might show an equity in mitigation of the relief sought it would have been harmful error but such is not the case.
The statute of frauds constitutes no bar to this case. This is a proceeding to reform a lease. The law of this case was settled when we approved the bill. Appellant placed appellee in possession of the premises and assured him that a five year lease would be given. Appellee relied on that assurance and invested money which he otherwise would not have done. Thereafter the formal lease was actually signed but its contents were not according to the terms under which appellee was put in possession. The circumstances surrounding the execution of the written lease is found in the evidence and a consideration of that leads to the final question of whether the bill was proven.
We have examined the testimony, the master’s report, as did the chancellor, and find no reason to disturb the decree.
Afiirmed.
CHAPMAN, SEBRING, BARNS and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
THOMAS, C. J., and TERRELL, J., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ALL Fla. Sur. Co. v. Coker, 88 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1956)…reasonable prudence under the same circumstances.” The decree is reversed for proceeding not inconsistent with this opinion and the cases of Crosby v. Orange State Oil Co., 1947, 158 Fla. 551, 29 So. 2d 634 and Orange State Oil Co. v. Crosby, 1947, 160 Fla. 664, 36 So. 2d 273, are overruled. [*512] The gravamen of this suit is a 99-year lease, hereinafter referred to as the “lease”. Morris Sokolik and Florence Sokolik, his wife, filed their complaint against Ocean Park Company, also known as Ocean Park Com…
-
Smith v. Royal Auto. Grp., Inc., 675 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…rm to the intentions of the parties. As reformation does not “charge” the other party with enforcement of the agreement, the statute of frauds has no effect on an action to reform a written document. See Orange State Oil Co. v. Crosby, 160 Fla. 664, 36 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1948), overruled on other grounds, All Florida Sur. Co. v. Coker, 88 So. 2d 508 (Fla.1956); Miley v. Miley, 402 So. 2d 557, 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Gennaro v. Leeper, 313 So. 2d 70, 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Although case law from some jurisdict…
-
Gennaro v. Leeper, 313 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…exercise of jurisdiction. See Chabot v. Winter Park Co., 34 Fla. 258, 15 So. 756, 759.” It is also the law that the statute of frauds does not constitute a bar in a proceeding seeking reformation. Orange State Oil Co. v. Crosby, 1948, 160 Fla. 664, 36 So. 2d 273. Under certain exceptional circumstances a plaintiff might be entitled to both specific performance and damages. In the event the appellant is successful under Count I it would be a question for the trial court to determine whether or not he would…
Authorities Cited
- Schupler v. E. Mortg. Co., 160 Fla. 72 (Fla. 1948)
- Holzendorf v. Lugenia Terrell, 52 Fla. 525 (Fla. 1906)
- Robertson v. Dunne, 45 Fla. 553 (Fla. 1903)
- Crosby v. Orange State OIL Co., 158 Fla. 551 (Fla. 1947)