JOHN W. PRICE, APPELLANT,
v.
ALEXANDER P. PRICE ET UX., APPELLEES
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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decree compelling specific performance of a verbal land sale agreement, holding that payment of consideration alone is insufficient to overcome the statute of frauds.
No, payment of the consideration alone is not sufficient to take a verbal agreement for the sale of land out of the statute of frauds. The purchaser's remedy at law to recover the purchase money is the only recourse if nothing further is done.
“Payment of the consideration or purchase price of land upon a parol agreement to convey, is not sufficient to take the case out of the statute of frauds.”
Establishes the core legal principle regarding the statute of frauds and verbal land agreements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees (complainants) conveyed land to appellant in exchange for appellant's verbal promise to convey a specific parcel of land to Mrs. Price. Appe…
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 Remedy At Law cases and more on FLexlaw
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a bill filed, to .compel'a specific performance of a verbal agreement for the sale and conveyance of land. The bill alleges that the complainants (appellees) conveyed to appellant one hundred acres of land; and in consideration of such conveyance appellant agreed, verbally, to convey to Mrs. Price, one of the complainants, a certain forty acre.s described in the bill, but that appellant afterwards refused to convey to her the forty acres. The bill then prays that appellant may be decreed to execute a deed according to. his agreement. There is no allegation that appellant put complainant, in possession of the land, or that they have been in possession, or that they have made any outlay or improvements on'the land described.
After answer and replication, testimony was taken by both parties and a decree was entered directing appellant to convey the land as prayed and that he pay the costs.
From this decree an appeal is taken.
Without reference to the testimony, and upon the statements of the bill alo'ne, the prayer should have been refused.
Payment of the consideration or purchase price of land upon a parol agreement to convey, is not sufficient to take the case out of the statute of frauds.
This doctrine was so fully considered in Tate vs. Jones, 16 Fla., 216, that we will only refer to that case for the rule upon this question. If the consideration was paid and nothing else was done toward carrying out the verbal contract, the purchaser can only have a remedy at law to recover-the purchase money.
The decree is reversed and the bill must be dismissed with costs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rowland v. Ewell, 174 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…der the circumstances of the cases. But the case at bar is not an action in Specific Performance. It is an action for damages. I am in accord with the expressions of the Supreme Court of this State when it ruled in the case of Price v. Price, 1880, 17 Fla. 605, that while specific performance of an oral contract to convey real property cannot be enforced by virtue of being barred by the Statute of Frauds, “If the consideration was paid and nothing else was done toward carrying out the verbal contract, the…
-
Neveils v. Thagard, 145 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)…5.01, F.S.A. . Williams v. Faile, (Fla.App.1960) 118 So. 2d 599; Canell v. Arcola Housing Corp., (Fla.1953) 65 So. 2d 849; Elsberry v. Sexton, 61 Fla. 162, 54 So. 592. . Mills v. Joiner, (Fla.1884) 20 Fla. 479. . Price v. Price et ux., (Fla.1880) 17 Fla. 605. . Tate v. Jones, (Fla.1877) 16 Fla. 216. . Riviera Printing Company v. Hessler’s Inc., (Fla.App.1959) 109 So. 2d 778; Todd et ux. v. Hyzer, (Fla.1944) 18 So. 2d 888. . Minsky’s Follies of Florida Inc. v. Sennes, (CCA 5th 1953) 206 F. 2d 1. . Ed…
-
Rich v. Arthur C. (Tony) Gulliver, 564 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…nable to obtain the $20,000 from the proceeds of the escrow account, as ordered in the final judgment, the plaintiff is clearly entitled to obtain a money judgment in the aforesaid amount against the defendant in the trial court. See Price v. Price, 17 Fla. 605 (1888); 22 Fla.Jur.2d Equity § 42 (1980); cf. Janeczek v. Embry, 330 So. 2d 837, 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Neveils v. Thagard, 145 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Tate's Administrator v. Jones' Executor, 16 Fla. 216 (Fla. 1828)