H. B. SMITZ, APPELLANT,
v.
DANIEL E. WRIGHT AND MINNE E. WRIGHT, HIS WIFE, AND JOHN B. WRIGHT AND BELLE L. WRIGHT, HIS WIFE, 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.
Appellant Smitz sought specific performance of a contract for conveyance of real estate against married women defendants. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the bill because the complaint failed to allege that the married women's contract was executed and acknowledged in the form required by statute for contracts involving married women's separate property.
A bill for specific performance of a contract by married women must allege and prove that the contract was executed and acknowledged in the form prescribed by statute. The presumption of validity applicable to contracts made by competent parties does not apply to contracts by married women and other incompetent parties; instead, proper execution and acknowledgment must be sufficiently alleged and proven.
“where a statute requires the execution and acknowledgment of a contract to convey real estate before it can be specifically enforced, a due execution and acknowledgment should be alleged where specific performance is sought in equity”
Establishes the core holding that statutory requirements for married women's contracts must be pleaded and proven
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmitz brought a bill in equity against Daniel E. Wright, Minne E. Wright, John B. Wright, and Belle L. Wright to enforce specific performance of a rea…
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 Coverture cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
The appellant brought a bill in equity against the appellees to enforce the specific performance of a contract for the conveyance of real estate. A demurrer interposed by the two married women was sustained, and Smitz appealed.
At common law a mere contract made by a married woman for the conveyance. of real estate, could not be specifically enforced for the reason that such contracts of a married woman are void.
Section 2594 of the General Statutes provides that “Coverture shall not prevent a decree against husband and wife to specifically perform their written agreement to sell or convey the separate property of the wife, or to relinquish her right of dower in the property of the husband, but no agreement for the sale or conveyance of her real property or for relinquishment of dower, shall be specifically enforced unless it be executed and acknowledged in the form prescribed for conveyances of her real property and for relinquishment of dower.”
The general rule announced in Maloy v. Boyett, 53 Fla. 956, 43 South. Rep. 243, that where a bill for specific performance sets out the contract for the sale of the lands in general terms, -the presumption of law in that it is a legal and valid contract and is in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith, is inapplicable to cases similar in essential facts to that one. General words used in a judicial opinion should be construed with such limitations as are required by a reference to the facts in the case. Where a person is competent to contract generally, as was the adult man defendant in the Maloy-Boyett case, it may not be necessary to show power to make the contract" sought to be enforced. But where persons who are not competent to contract generally, such as married women and infants, a binding contract by them will not by presumed, but should be sufficiently alleged and proven. Where a statute requires the execution and acknowledgment of a contract to convey real estate before it can be specifically enforced, a due execution and acknowledgment should be alleged whree specific performance is sought in equity. Where a litigated right depends upon action taken under a statute, a compliance with the statute should be shown. See Symmes v. Prairie Pebble Phosphate Co., decided this term.
There is no allegation in the bill of complaint that the contract sought to be specifically enforced was by either of the married women “executed and acknowledged in the form prescribed for conveyances of her real property and for relinquishment of dower” as expressly required by the statute. It is not even alleged that either of the married women made a contract express or implied to convey. See Rose v. Henderson, 63 Fla. 564, 59 South. Rep. 138.
The order sustaining the demurrer of the two married women to the bill of complaint is affirmed.
Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur. Taylor, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weinberger v. The Bd. of Pub. Instruction of St. Johns Cnty., 93 Fla. 470 (Fla. 1927)…presented for decision. Union Tank Line Co. v. Wright, 249 U. S. 275, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 276. General words used in a judicial opinion should be construed with such limitations as are required by a reference to the facts in the case. Smitz v. Wright, 64 Fla. 485, text 486, 60 South. Rep. 225; concurring opinion ex parte Ernest Amos, 112 So. 289, filed January 11, 1927; 177 N. Y. 106; 101 Am. St. Rep. 722; 15 Fla. (2nd) 412. In Thompson v. Frostproof, 89 Fla. 92, 103 South. Rep. 118, the Constitution did no…
-
Ex Parte: Ernest Amos, 93 Fla. 5 (Fla. 1927)…is presented for decision. Union Tank Line Co. v Wright, 249 U. S. 275, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 276. General words used in a judicial opinion should be construed with such limitations as are required by a refernce to the facts in the case. Smitz v. Wright, 64 Fla. 485, text 486, 60 South. Rep. 225. See also Hart v. Stribling, 25 Fla. 435, 6 South. Rep. 455. The general language used in Kirkland v. State, 86 Fla. 130, 97 South. Rep. 510, is controlled by the facts of the case. The indictment in that case alleged…
-
Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. City of Lakeland, 94 Fla. 347 (Fla. 1927)…course only to the facts alleged and admitted by the pleadings of the parties in the case. General words used in a judicial opinion should be construed with such limitations as are required by a reference to the facts in the ease. Smitz v. Wright, 64 Fla. 485, text 486, 60 South. Rep. 225. This is not a case in which a special taxing district has been formed and special taxes imposed to defray the cost of a local public improvement, the benefits of which is general and common to the district as an entire…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maloy v. Boyett, 53 Fla. 956 (Fla. 1907)
- Rose v. Henderson, 63 Fla. 564 (Fla. 1912)