CORINE HARVEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF W. H. HARVEY, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
SARAH ANN HAYES, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a decree awarding specific performance of a land contract for the sale of a Pensacola lot despite the statute of frauds defense. The court held that a sufficient change of possession was demonstrated through the seller's admission to a tenant that the buyer was the true owner, combined with contemporaneous written correspondence and prompt legal action after the seller's death.
The court held that the statute of frauds was satisfied by the combined evidence of an admitted change of possession (Harvey's declaration to the tenant that Sarah was the owner), coupled with contemporaneous written letters containing all material terms of the sale, and the testimony of the tenant confirming the conditional vendee's actual ownership. Specific performance was therefore properly awarded.
“Harvey in his life time, leased the property for Sarah to a tenant, whom he told that Sarah was the owner and he was only the agent.”
Establishes the key evidence of change of possession—the legal owner's admission to a tenant that the buyer was the true owner.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceW. H. Harvey orally contracted to sell a lot in Pensacola to Sarah Ann Hayes. Harvey leased the property to a tenant to whom he stated that Sarah was …
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 Statute Of Frauds cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
This is an appeal from a decree awarding specific performance of a contract to convey a lot in the city of Pensacola, and other relief.
It is argued by the appellant that there was insufficient showing of a change of possession to avoid the statute of frauds.
Omitting wholly the testimony of the appellee, an incompetent witness by reason of the death of W. H. Harvey, the evidence shows without contradiction that Harvey in his life time, leased the property for Sarah to a tenant, whom he told that Sarah was the owner and he was only the agent. Assuming that this statement would not in and of itself be a sufficiently notorious change of possession, there are numerous letters written by Harvey in which he refers to the' contract of sale, with every element mentioned as to terms of payment, calling the property “your house,” and speaking of the rentals he had collected from it for her. The only occasion for going outside these writings was to show with certainty what was meant by “your house,” “the place,” and" as to this the oral proof was manifest; any possible ambiguity in the contract was positively removed by the parties themselves, and the testimony of the tenant put in actual possession by the owner of the legal title that the real ownership was in the conditional vendee, should not be held violative of the statute of frauds. The suit was brought with reasonable promptness. There is some doubt as to when the conditional vendee was entitled to specific performance, the payments being made spasmodically either directly from the vendee to the vendor, or in the way of rents collected by the latter; the vendee is apparently an unlettered negro woman, who much of the time was out of the State. Demand was made upon Harvey for a deed, only a week before his death, but he put her off upon the plea of his physical condition, and suit was brought with reasonable promptness against his administratrix after his death.
Appellee complains of an allowance to the administratrix, but she has not assigned cross-errors as required by the rule, and therefore may not be heard. Morgan v. Jones, 52 Fla. 543, 42 South. Rep. 242.
The decree is affirmed.
Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford and Ellis, JJ., concur. Whitfield, J., absent on account of sickness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morgan Rundel v. Gordon, 92 Fla. 1110 (Fla. 1927)…tween the parties to such an agreement consisting of letters and telegrams may constitute the memoranda required by the Statute, we will consider both letters as constituting the memoranda of the agreement sought to be enforced. See Harvey v. Hayes, 71 Fla. 346, 71 South. Rep. 282; Simons v. Tobin, _ Fla. _, 104 South. Rep. 583; Tucker v. Gray, 82 Fla. 351, 90 South. Rep. 158; Hotel Halcyon v. Miami Real Estate Co., 89 Fla. 156, 103 South. Rep. 403. When written memoranda are relied upon to take a contrac…
-
Henderson v. Usher, 125 Fla. 709 (Fla. 1936)…the will or take dower. This question is not properly presented for review by this Court as the question was not cross assigned as error. See [*718] Gay v. Whiddon, 64 Fla. 295, 59 So. 896; Morgan v. Jones, 52 Fla. 543, 42 So. 242; Harvey v. Hayes, 71 Fla. 346, 71 So. 282; Punta Gorda State Bank v. Wilder, 93 Fla. 301, 112 So. 569, 571; Oates v. Prudential Life Insurance Co., 107 Fla. 224, 144 So. 418. The two cross assignments of error were made by the Executors and not- by the Minor, and related to matt…
-
Hotel Halcyon Corp. & Thomas J. Peters v. Miami Real Est. Co., 89 Fla. 156 (Fla. 1925)…t) 406; 16 R. C. L. 557. The contract alleged in the bill is alleged to be contained in several writings. Contracts required to be in writing may be so evidenced. See Howard v. Pensacola & A. R. Co., 24 Fla. 560, 5 South. Rep. 356; Harvey v. Hayes, 71 Fla. 346, 71 South. Rep. 282; Felt v. Morse, 80 Fla. 154, 85 South. Rep. 656; 1 Underhill on Landlord and Tenant, 268; Wharton v. Stoutenburgh, 35 N. J. Eq. 266; Cochrane v. Justice Mining Co., 16 Col. 415, 26 Pac. Rep. 780. As to the agency of Peters and W…
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
- Morgan v. Jones, 52 Fla. 543 (Fla. 1906)