TATUM LAND COMPANY, A CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, TATUM BROS. COMPANY, A CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA; LAWRENCE ESTATE LAND COMPANY, A CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND HELEN M. S. GREENHOW, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARJOHN REALTY COMPANY, INC., A CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF NEW YORK, 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.
This Florida Supreme Court case addresses whether an agent's authority to bind a principal in the sale of real estate must be in writing. The court affirmed the trial court's order overruling the defendant's demurrer to the plaintiff's amended bill of complaint, holding that under Florida law, such authority need not be in writing.
In Florida, the authority to an agent to bind the principal to convey real estate is not required to be in writing. Therefore, the case is not controlled by Grafton v. Cummings, and the trial court properly overruled the demurrer to the amended bill of complaint.
“In this State the authority to au agent to bind the principal to convey real estate is not required to be in writing and therefore, it is held that this case is not controlled by the law, as enunciated in the case of Grafton v. Cummings, 99 TI. S. Rep. 100.”
The court's primary holding establishing that Florida law does not require written authority for an agent to bind a principal in real estate transactions.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarjohn Realty Company negotiated to purchase property with Tatum Bros. Company and Tatum Land Company, which were controlled by the same parties with…
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
Per Curiam.
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the order overruling demurrer to the Amended Bill of Complaint herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said order overruling demurrer to Amended Bill of Complaint; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said order overruling demurrer to Amended Bill of Complaint of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Re-Hearing. 1.
In this State the authority to au agent to bind the principal to convey real estate is not required to be in writing and therefore, it is held that this case is not controlled by the law, as enunciated in the case of Grafton v. Cummings, 99 TI. S.
Rep. 100.
Petition for rehearing is denied.
Shutts é Bowen and John S.
Benz, Attorney for Appellants ; Norris McElya, Attorney for Appellee.
Per Curiam.
The allegations contained in the bill of complaint as follows: "Your orator would further show unto the Court that in compliance with said agreement the said Tatum Bros.
Company, furnished your orator an abstract of the said property which was' delivered to your orator’s attorneys, Burdine & Barco, and that the said abstract showed title to the property to be in TATUM LAND COMPANY, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. "Your orator would further show unto the Court that TATUM BROS.
COMPANY, and TATUM LAND COMPANY, are corporations under the laws of the State of Florida, the control of the stock of both corporations being owned by the same parties and that B. B.
Tatum is an officer of both Tatum Bros.
Company and Tatum Land Company, and is the individual with whom the Marjohn Realty Company, Inc., through its President, Charles Apfel, made negotiations for the purchase of the said property, that the officers of Tatum Bros.
Company had full authority to sell the property of the Tatum Land Company, that the officers of Tatum Bros.
Company could execute a binding deed for the property of either company, that after the examination of the title, and on or about..............................day of.................................... A. D. 1926, the said Tatum Bros.
Company and the said Tatum Land Company, notified the Marjohn Realty Company, Inc., through its President, Charles Apfel, that they would be ready to close the transaction on the following day and upon said following day your orator through his attorneys, Burdine & Barco, called Mr. B. B.
Tatum, an officer of the Tatum Bros.
Company, and also an officer of the Tatum Land Company, on the telephone and asked at what hour they could make an appointment to close the transaction, whereupon B. B.
Tatum informed your orator through your orator’s attorneys, Burdine & Barco, that they would not consummate the deal unless your orator paid the sum of One Plundred Five Thousand ($105,-000.00) Dollars for the said property, which your orator-refused to do.”
These and other allegations taken together with the fact that in this State the authority to an agent to bind the principal to convey real estate is not required to be in writing, cause this case not to be controlled by the law as enunciated in the case of Grafton v. Cumming, 99 U. S.
Rep. 100.
The Statute of New Hampshire differs from the law applicable in this State in that that statute requires the authorization of the agent to be by writing.
Petition for rehearing is denied.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Bcford, J. J.. concur. Brown, C. J., and Ellis and Strum, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thompkin Corp. v. Miller, 156 Fla. 388 (Fla. 1945)…may be inferred from the related facts of the case. Beekman v. Sonntag Inv. Co., 67 Fla. 293, 64 So. 948; General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Lynch Building Corp., 118 Fla. 2, 159 So. 785; Tatum Land Co. v. Marjohn Realty Company, 92 Fla. 534, 109 So. 813. The evidence is bulky. It shows as the bill alleges that Thomkin Corporation was incorporated in Florida in 1931 for the purpose of taking over and operating the property involved in this litigation, that it never owned any other property in Flori…
-
Stuyvesant Corp. v. Stahl, 62 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1952)…ay be inferred from the related facts of the case. Beekman v. Sonntag Inv. Co., 67 Fla. 293, 64 So. 948; General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Lynch Building Corporation, 118 Fla. 2, 159 So. 785; Tatum Land Co. v. Marjohn Realty Co., 92 Fla. 534, 109 So. 813.” It is true that although the above case was dealing with principal and agent, the same principle applies in the case at bar because LaChance had the authority or had apparent authority to act for the appellant in parking automobiles. There were n…
-
de Bueno v. Castro, 543 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…ity to execute conveyances for estate planning purposes, and that the deed had been executed at the decedent’s command. Cf. Johnson v. Fraccacreta. See also Smith v. Shackleford, 92 Fla. 731, 110 So. 358 (1926); Tatum Land Co. v. Marjohn Realty Co., 92 Fla. 534, 109 So. 813 (1926); Lan-Chile Airlines, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 296 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, Rodriguez v. Lan-Chile Airlines, Inc., 310 So. 2d 305 (Fla.1975). Because we find no error in the trial court’s determination that the deed…
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
- Grafton v. Cummings, 99 U.S. 100 (U.S. 1878)