S. G. RAGSDALE, APPELLANT,
v.
MIAMI CADILLAC COMPANY, A CORPORATION, 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.
Ragsdale purchased an automobile from Miami Cadillac Company on an installment contract with a balance of $300.08 unpaid. When the company obtained a Writ of Replevin to repossess the vehicle, Ragsdale filed a bill of complaint seeking redemption. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court's dismissal, holding that the contract provisions constituted a mortgage and that Ragsdale had equity for redemption.
The contract provisions alleged constitute a mortgage, and the purchaser has equity for prompt redemption where the greater part of the purchase price has been paid. The trial court's dismissal on demurrer was improper because the allegations were sufficient to establish redemption rights if proven.
“Title to said property shall not pass to the purchaser until said amount is fully paid in cash.”
Establishes the retention of title provision that is central to characterizing the contract as a mortgage.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRagsdale purchased an automobile worth $2,000 from Miami Cadillac Company under a sales contract. A balance of $300.08 plus a small amount of interest…
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 Right Of Redemption cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, P. J.
The bill of complaint herein in effect alleges that a Writ of Replevin has been issued and served on complainant for an automobile worth $2,000.00, bought from defendant on the purchase price of which a balance of $300.08 and “a small amount of interest” are due and unpaid. The bill alleges that the contract of sale contains among others the following provisions:
“Title to said property shall not pass to the purchaser until said amount is fully paid in cash.”
“If the purchaser default in complying with the terms hereof, the seller may take immediate possession of said property, including any equipment or accessories thereto; and for this purpose the seller may enter upon the premises where said property may he and remove same. The seller may resell said property, so retaken, at public or private sale, without demand for performance, with or without notice to the purchaser, with or without having such property at the place of sale, and upon such terms and in such manner as the seller may determine; the seller may bid at any public sale. Prom the proceeds of any such sale, the seller shall deduct all expenses for retaking, repairing and selling such property, including a reasonable attorney’s fee. The balance thereof .shall be applied to the amount due; any surplus shall be paid over to the purchaser; in case of deficiency tire purchaser shall pay the same with interest and the purchaser does hereby confess judgment in the amount of said deficiency. Seller shall have the right to enforce one or more remedies hereunder, successively or concurrently, and such action shall not operate to estop or prevent the seller from pursuing any further remedy which he may have hereunder, and any repossession or retaking or sale of the property pursuant to the terms hereof shall not operate to release the purchaser until full payment has been made in cash.”
The prayer is to redeem upon payment of balance due which is tendered in court.
A general demurrer to the bill was sustained, and complainant appealed.
As the allegations with reference to the provisions of the sales contract alleged to-be a mortgage, indicate that it may on sufficient proof properly be held to be a mortgage, and as apparently the greater part of the purchase price of the automobile has been paid, there is equity for prompt redemption if the allegations are fully proven.
Reversed.
West and Terrell, J. J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Ellis and Browne, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Malone v. Meres, 109 So. 677 (Fla. 1926)…replevying the goods, after they have been in large part paid for, the buyer may appropriate equitable procedure to redeem the goods under the lien feature of the contract by paying the balance of the purchase price. Ragsdale v. Miami Cadillac Co., 88 Fla. 302, 102 South. Rep. 494. See also Bankston v. Hill, 134 Miss. 288, 98 South. Rep. 689. Where the value of the goods greatly depreciates and the seller elects to sue for the purchase price or to enforce his lien, the buyer may perhaps have no relief fro…
-
Rubin S. Klein v. G. F. C. Corp., 103 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…of the civil court of record is in any manner concerned with that conclusion. In addition it should be pointed out that a proper equitable defense may be made by a purchaser in default on a retain title contract. See Ragsdale v. Miami Cadillac Co., 88 Fla. 302, 102 So. 494. Upon this second question, “(2) was it error to enter a summary judgment for the value of an automobile in replevin which had been returned under a forthcoming bond to the petitioner, no determination having been made of the special i…
-
G.F.C. Corp. v. Spradlin, 38 So.2d 679 (Fla. 1949)