L. P. GOLSON, ADMINISTRATOR AD LITEM OF THE ESTATE OF J. L. MALOY, DECEASED, AND WILLIE MALOY, SAMMIE MALOY, LEILA MALOY AND BESSIE MALOY, MINOR CHILDREN OF J. L. MALOY, BY L. P. GOLSON, THEIR GUARDIAN AD LITEM, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARGARET ANNETTE BOYETT, ALLEN BOYETT, MARSHALL BOYETT, LONNIE BOYETT, CASSIE BOYETT, MILLIE ANN BOYETT AND MINNIE LEE BOYETT, BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND J. E. BOYETT, APPELLEES

Fla. | 1910-01-01
Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur;, Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur in the opinion.
59 Fla. 510 Florida Supreme Court (1910) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decree for specific performance of a real estate contract, finding that the amended bill of complaint sufficiently addressed defects identified in a prior appeal and that the evidence supported the decree.


Holding

The court held that the amended bill of complaint sufficiently addressed the previously identified defects and presented a valid case for specific performance. The court also found that the proofs adequately sustained the lower court's decree.


Key Quotes

“The 'amended bill now under consideration we think entirely supplies the defects pointed .out in the former appeal, and we think presents a sufficient case for specific performance.”

Establishes that the amended bill corrected previous defects and was sufficient for specific performance.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

This was the second appeal of a specific performance case. The complainants amended their bill of complaint after the first appeal, and the lower cour…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Taylor, J.

Taylor, J.

This is the second appeal in this case. See Maloy v. Boyett, et al., 53 Fla. 956, 43 South. Rep. 243. On the former appeal various defects in the bill of complaint were pointed out, and the decree of the court below was reversed with directions for leave to the complainants to amend their bill for the specific performance of a contract to convey realty. The complainants accordingly amended their said bill, and upon the testimony taken the court below rendered a decree in favor of the complainants adjudging that the alleged contract between the said parties should be specifically performed. This decree the defendants below bring here for review by appeal. It is now contended that the amended bill upon which the cause was finally heard and determined is subject to the same criticisms as the bill stricken down on the former appeal. This contention we cannot sustain. The 'amended bill now under consideration we think entirely supplies the defects pointed .out in the former appeal, and we think presents a sufficient case for specific performance. We think, too, that the proofs abundantly sustain the decree of the court below, and said decree is, therefore, hereby affirmed at the cost of the appellants.

Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur;

Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur in the opinion.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Crossman v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp., 273 F.2d 720 (5th Cir. 1959)
    …t performance will take a contract to sell land out of the Statute of Frauds and entitle the performing party to specific performance. Tate’s Adm’r v. Jones’s Ex’r, 1877, 16 Fla. 216; Maloy v. Boyett, 1909, 53 Fla. 956, 43 So. 243; Golson v. Boyett, 59 Fla. 510, 52 So. 141; Taylor v. Mathews, 1907, 53 Fla. 776, 44 So. 146; Demps v. Hogan, 1909, 57 Fla. 60, 48 So. 998; Hogans v. Demps, 63 Fla. 177, 58 So. 33. The considerations allowing equitable relief to a person who has taken possession and partly perfor…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw