CHARLES G. BELOTE, APPELLANT,
v.
H. M. CHALIFOUX, 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.
Belote sought to establish a lien on Chalifoux's real estate for labor and materials furnished in building construction. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment for the defendant, finding that Belote contracted with the builder, not the property owner, and thus lacked the privity necessary to claim a lien.
Belote failed to establish the privity necessary to claim a lien because she contracted with the builder on the builder's account, not as the builder's agent acting for the owner. The absence of privity between Belote and Chalifoux, combined with the failure to provide required notice, precluded the lien claim.
“The theory of the bill is that the complainant was in privity with the defendant in furnishing the labor and material for which a lien is sought.”
States the legal theory Belote relied upon to claim the lien.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBelote furnished labor and materials for plumbing and other work on real property owned by Chalifoux. The building was constructed by a contractor who…
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 Privity Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
A bill in equity' was filed by Belote against H. M. Cbalifoux to declare a lien upon real estate of the defendant for labor and materials furnished in buildings on said property. An answer was filed contesting the rights asserted, replication was filed and a report was made by a master in favor of . the complainant. The court sustained exceptions to the master’s report and rendered a final decree for the defendant.- On appeal the complainant below-assigns error on the action of' the court.'
The theory of the bill is that the complainant was in privity with the defendant in furnishing the labor and material for which a lien is sought. A careful considera-1 tion of the evidence discloses no error in the action of the chancellor in decreeing in favor of the defendant. There is substantial evidence to sustain a finding that the building was constructed by a person who engaged to do the entire job, furnishing all materials, for a stated price, and that the complainant furnished labor and material for the plumbing, ,&c., pursuant to a contract made with the builder on his own account, and not as agent of the owner.
The evidence shows a contract made by the complainant with the builder to do the work and furnish the material in controversy, and there is no showing that the defendant owner of the property in any way become responsible for the material and labor furnished under such contract. It is true payments were made to the complainant by the defendant’s checks, but there is evidence that this was done at the request of the builder. There is evidence that the defendant gave some attention to the character of the labor and maternal furnished and that she gave instructions in the absence of the builder; but the evidence does not show that she directly or indirectly assumed responsibility for the labor and material ordered by the builder who was paid in full by installments as agreed before any notice was given to the defendant owner that the complainant demanded payment of her. There is evidence that the builder did not fully, complete the job, and that the plumbing, &c., here in controversy was completed after the builder left the job; but there is also evidence that the last payment made by the defendant to the complainant was made at the request of the builder. Bills for material were made to the builder and not to the defendant, and it does not appear, that the builder acted-.as the agent for the owner in ordering or. receiving the material. As the evidence does not show a ¡relation, of privity between the-complainant and the defendant, or of principal and agent between the owner and the builder, and as no notice was given as required where no privity exists, there was no error in rendering a decree for the defendant.
Decree affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hooker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harper Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Teate, 98 Fla. 1055 (Fla. 1929)…v. Powers, 104 Atl. R. 252; Willer v. Bergenthal, 7 N. W. R. 352; Ambrose Mfg. Co. v. Garpen, 22 Mo. App. 397; Wisconsin Planing Mill Co. v. Grams, 39 N. W. R. 531. See also Mulliken v. Harrison, 53 Fla. 255, 44 So. R. 426; and Belote v. Chalifoux, 68 Fla. 537, 67 So R. 108, in which cases the subject is incidentally adverted to. In this ease, however, it appears that the owner’s promise to pay was made “on or about November 26, 1924.” The materials had been furnished to and upon the credit of the contra…
-
Stowers v. Wheat, 78 F.2d 25 (5th Cir. 1935)…ne contracting with the lessee gets no lien against the interest of the owner, but only against that of the lessee. They cite Harper Lbr. Co. v. Teate, 98 Fla. 1055, 125 So. 21; Gulf Iron Works v. Gandy, 70 Fla. 306, 70 So. 366; Belote v. Chalifoux, 68 Fla. 537, 67 So. 108. They say that the decisions from other states are not controlling, for all of them, except the Missouri case, rest on statutes containing provisions construed as making the lessee under a lease of this kind the statutory agent for the o…