B. G. LOCKETT & CO., APPELLANTS,
v.
W. G. ROBINSON, AS ASSIGNEE OF H. P. ROBINSON & BRO., 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.
This case addresses whether a contractor's lien claimant can proceed in equity against an assignee for the benefit of creditors when the statutory lien remedy becomes inadequate due to the sale of the liened property. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the lower court's dismissal and held that equity jurisdiction is proper when the statutory remedy cannot provide adequate relief.
Equity jurisdiction is proper when a statutory lien remedy becomes inadequate or cannot furnish relief due to the circumstances of the case. An assignee for the benefit of creditors has no higher or better title than his grantor and is bound by a lien that was properly filed within the statutory time and manner, even if the assignee had no notice of the claimant's rights.
“Where a statute gives a lien, and does riot give an adequate remedy, or where, owing to the peculiar circumstances of the case, the remedy given by the statute can not furnish relief, the party claiming the lien may go into equity for relief.”
Establishes the foundational principle that equity jurisdiction is available when statutory lien remedies are inadequate
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceB. G. Lockett & Co. claimed a lien under Florida law on a building and lot. W. G. Robinson, as assignee of H. P. Robinson & Bro., filed a bill to enjo…
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 Assignee Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
Young, Circuit Judge:
The first question to be determined in this case is whether or not the demurrer for want of equity, and on the ground of adequate remedy at law, was well taken. Where a statute gives a lien, and does riot j^Lve an adequate remedy, or where, owing to the peculiar circumstances of the case, the remedy given by the statute can not furnish relief, the party claiming the lien may go into equity for relief. Thrasher vs. Doig & Geiger, 18 Fla., 809; Davis vs. Alvord, 94 U. S., 545. In the case at bar the complainants claimed to have a lien under Chapter 1632, as amended by Chapter 3042, Laws of Florida, and defendant filed a bill to enjoin them from enforcing their lien on the building and lot on which it was claimed. Thereupon, by consent of all parties, the lot was sold under an agreement that the proceeds were to be in lieu of the lot, and were to be placed in bank to abide the adjudication of complainants’ rights.
Thus bjr the agreement of the parties under which the lot was sold, the defendant holding as assignee, the remedy given by the statute could not give adequate relief. By the agreement the complainants could no longer subject the lot to a satisfaction of their claim, and the proceeds derived from the sale could not be reached directly, except in equity. It is not sufficient that there is a remedy at law; it must be as complete and beneficial as the relief in equity. Hodges vs. Kowing, 58 Conn., 12, 7 L.
R. A., 87. The demurrer for want of equity, and on the ground of adequate remedy at law, was not well taken.
An assignee for the benefit of creditors has no higher or better title than his grantor. He can have no greater rights in the property than his assignor. The assignee is bound where his assignor would be bound. Campbell Printing Press & Man’fg Co. vs. Walker, 22 Fla., 412, 1 South. Rep., 59; Einstein’s Sons vs. Shouse, 24 Fla., 490, 5 South. Rep., 380.
If the notice of the lien was filed within the time-and in the manner prescribed by the statute, the lien is good as against the assignee, though he had no notice of complainants’ rights until after the execution and delivery of the assignment. The fact that the assignment is valid does not alter the case. No relief being prayed against H. P. Robinson and Charles F. Robinson, they were not necessary parties to the bill.
The decree of the Circuit Court is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kimbrell v. Fink, 78 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1955)…he mechanics of its enforcement and is not material to the question here decided. The construction company relies upon Jones v. Carpenter, 90 Fla. 407, 106 So. 127, 43 A.L.R. 1409; Foster v. Thornton, 131 Fla. 277, 179 So. 882; Lockett v. Robinson, 31 Fla. 134, 12 So. 649, 20 L.R.A. 67, and similar cases to sustain the decree of the lower court. We find no similarity whatever between either the facts or the principles of law involved in those cases and the instant litigation. In Jones v. Carpenter, for ex…
-
Hobbs v. Chamberlain, 55 Fla. 661 (Fla. 1908)…the statute to present it to the law court in any case. If the equitable, defense- is not presented in an action at law under -the statute -any proper equitable remedy may be invoked. See Thrasher v. Doig & Geiger, 18 Fla. 809; Lockett v. Robinson, 31 Fla. 134, 12 South. Rep. 649; 4 Pomeroy’s Eq. Jur. (3rd ed.) § 1367; Day’s Common Law Proc. Act, 334. It does not clearly appear ’thqt the statutory right to present -a plea on equitable grounds in the action by the appellee to evict the appellants affords…
-
Standard Fertilizer Co. v. The State, 130 Fla. 350 (Fla. 1937)…ed unless the statutory remedy is made exclusive. The statute we have under consideration did not provide a statutory method for enforceing the lien created by the statute. Therefore, its enforcement must be in equity. See also Lockett v. Robinson, 31 Fla. 134, 12 Sou. 649. In 47 C. J. 25 it is said: “Where the beneficial ownership and the legal title to a chose in action or tangible property are separated, the beneficial owner’s rights may be protected by the bringing [*354] of an action to his use in,…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Campbell Printing Press & Mfg. Co. v. Whitfield Walker, 22 Fla. 412 (Fla. 1886)
- Davis v. Alvord, 94 U.S. 545 (U.S. 1876)
- Thrasher v. Doig & Geiger, 18 Fla. 809 (Fla. 1882)
- Sons v. Shouse, 24 Fla. 490 (Fla. 1888)