WILLIAM A. PATRICK, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM J. SEARS, APPELLEE
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.
Patrick agreed to sell Sears five acres of land near Kissimmee City for $100, with the specific acres to be selected by Sears's agent. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the lower court's denial of Patrick's demurrer, holding that the contract was too vague and uncertain to enforce in equity because the land was not identified in the written agreement and parol evidence cannot supply the missing identification.
The court held that the contract cannot be enforced in equity because it is too vague and uncertain—the land is not identified in the written agreement, and parol evidence cannot supply this missing identification. Additionally, Patrick did not appear to own or have power to convey any land near Kissimmee City.
“This is not such an agreement as may be enforced in equity, because the land is not identified in it, nor did either party contemplate any particular five acres.”
The court's primary holding that the contract is unenforceable due to lack of identification of the specific land.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePatrick wrote an agreement to sell Sears five acres of land near Kissimmee City for $100, with the land to be selected by Sears's agent. Sears appoint…
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 Specific Performance Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
The Chief-Justice
delivered the opinion of the court:
Sears filed his bill in equity against Patrick to enforce the specific performance of the following contract:
“ I have agreed to sell W. J. Sears five acres of land near Kissimmee City, in Orange county, Florida, for one hundred dollars, to be selected by his agent. January 18, 1882. W. A. Patrick.” Sears appointed W. J. "White as his agent to select the land. White selected the five acres and notified Patrick in writing that he had selected it, describing the land selected, and as the agent of Sears tendered one hundred dollars in payment and demanded a deed. Patrick refused to take the money or to give a deed.
Patrick demurred to the bill for want of equity. The Chancellor overruled the demurrer, and from this order the appeal is taken.
This is not such an agreement as may be enforced in equity, because the land is not identified in it, nor did either party contemplate any particular five acres. It could only be ascertained by the action of the agent chosen to select it, and proved by the testimony of the agent or other witnesses.
In Parteriche vs. Powlett, 2 Atk., 383, Lord Hardwicke says: “ To add anything to an agreement in writing, by admitting parol evidence which would affect lands, is not only contrary to the statute of frauds and perjuries, but to the rule of the common law before that statute was in being.” In the case of Brodie vs. St. Paul, 1 Ves. Jr., 326, Mr. Justice Buller says: “ The question here is, what is the agreement ? The whole depends upon parol. If the agreement is certain, and explained in writing, signed by the parties, that binds them; if not, and evidence is necessary to prove what the terms were, to admit it would effectually break in upon the statute and introduce all the mischief, inconvenience and uncertainty the statute was designed to prevent.” And see Clinam vs. Cooke, 1 Sch. & Lefroy, 22, decided by Lord Redesdale. A specific performance will only be decreed where a specific thing is agreed to be conveyed. Shelton vs. Church, 10 Mo., 774.
If the agreement does not point out and identify the premises it is too vague and uncertain to be enforced, and the defect is such that parol proof cannot aid the instrument. Dobson vs. Litton, 5 Coldw., 616 ; McGuire vs. Stevens, 42 Miss., 724 ; Holmes vs. Evans, 48 Miss., 247 ; Miller vs. Campbell, 52 Ind., 125 ; Baldwin vs. Kerlin, 46 Ind., 426; Johnson vs. Craig, 21 Ark., 533; Parkhurst vs. Van Courtlandt, 1 John. Ch., 281; Blair vs. Snodgrass, 1, Sneed, 1 ; Wait’s Actions and Def., 798, §2; Ery on Spec. Perf. of Con., §362, n. 17; Waterman on Spec. Perf., 203, §154 ; 1 Greenl. on Ev., §268; and the very numerous cases cited in these text books.
Another fatal objection to the bill is, that it does not appear that Patrick owned or had power to convey any land near Kissimmee City. Williams vs. Mansell, 19 Fla., 546.
The decree overruling .the demurrer is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to sustain the demurrer and dismiss the bill.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rhode v. Gallat, 70 Fla. 536 (Fla. 1915)…d that specific performance will not be enforced where the contract does not designate with certainty the lands to be conveyed, and that parol proof is inadmissible to supply a description of the land not identified in the writing. Patrick v. Sears, 19 Fla. 856; Carr v. Passaic Land Improvement & Building Co., 22 N. J. Eq. 85; Fordyce Lumber Co. v. Wallace, 85 Ark. 1, 107 S. W. Rep. 160; McGuire v. Stevens, 42 Miss. 724, 2 [*541] Am. Rep. 649. In the case of Breaid v. Munger, 88 N. C. 297, it is held that…
-
Holmes La Mar v. Lechlider, 135 Fla. 703 (Fla. 1939)…e estate or fee interest in the property) of the interest being acquired by the Lechliders. The lower court correctly concluded that specific perform [*708] anee could not be granted the plaintiffs. Glinski v. Zewadski, 8 Fla. 405; Patrick v. Sears, 19 Fla. 856; Edwards v. Rives, 35 Fla. 89, 17 So. 416; Connor v. Joseph Dixon Crucible Co., 92 Fla. 716, 110 So. 128; Rundel v. Gordon, 92 Fla. 1110, 111 So. 386. In cases brought to enforce the specific performance of contracts, as a general rule, if the plai…
-
Lente v. Clarke, 22 Fla. 515 (Fla. 1886)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. Mansell, 19 Fla. 546 (Fla. 1882)