J. HARWELL WILSON, APPELLANT,
v.
SUE DANIEL, 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 an order overruling a demurrer to a bill of complaint seeking to cancel a land purchase contract. The court held that a liquidated damages clause in the contract, which provided that the seller would retain a deposit as compensation for breach, brought the case under the doctrine of Chubb v. J. Harker Chadwick & Company rather than the Taylor v. Rawlins line of cases.
The court affirmed the order overruling the demurrer, holding that the liquidated damages clause in the contract removes the case from the control of the Taylor v. Rawlins doctrine and instead brings it under the doctrine announced in Chubb v. J. Harker Chadwick & Company.
“And if the abstract shows merchantable title vested in first party and second party fails or refuses to complete this deal within fifteen days after the delivery of the abstract of title by paying the additional cash payment of $7,500.00, and executing the notes and mortgages above described, then it is understood and agreed that first party will retain the $5,000.00 this day paid, as fair and just compensation for damages sustained by first party on account of breach of this contract by second party.”
The liquidated damages clause in the purchase contract that the court found dispositive in distinguishing the case from Taylor v. Rawlins precedent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Wilson and appellee Daniel entered into a contract on October 24, 1925, for the purchase of lands in Polk County, Florida. The contract requ…
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 Merchantable Title cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This appeal is from an order overruling a demurrer to a bill of complaint to 'cancel an alleged contract to purchase certain lands in Polk County, Florida. The contract to purchase was entered into by appellant and appellee October 24, 1925, and among other provisions contains the following:
“And if the abstract shows merchantable title vested in first party and second party fails or refuses to complete this deal within fifteen days after the delivery of the abstract of title by paying the additional cash payment of $7,500.00, and executing the notes and mortgages above described, then it is understood and agreed that first party will retain the $5,000.00 this day paid, as fair and just compensation for damages sustained by first party on account of breach of this contract by second party.”
The party of the second part, appellant here, breached the contract by failing to pay the $7,500.00 and executing the notes and mortgage referred to according to the terms of the said contract. Appellee then instituted her suit for cancellation.
For reversal appellant relies on Taylor v. Rawlins, 86 Fla. 279, 97 So. 714, 35 A. L. R. 271, and Taylor v. Rawlins, 90 Fla. 621, 106 So. 424.
We think that provision in the contract here quoted releases the instant case from control by the doctrine announced in Taylor v. Rawlins. We are of the view, however, that it is ruled by the doctrine announced in Chubb v. J. Harker Chadwick & Company decided by this Court January 21, 1927, 111 So. 538.
The decree of the chancellor is therfore affirmed on authority of that case. See also Realty Securities Corporation v. Johnson, decided by this Court January 18, 1927, 111 So. 532.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mahood v. Bessemer Props. Inc., 154 Fla. 710 (Fla. 1944)…erefore was entitled to a decree quieting the title against the contract. This holding is but a re-affirmance of our ruling in Realty Securities Corp. v. Johnson 93 Fla. 46, 111 So. 532; Chubb v. Chadwick, 93 Fla. 114, 111 So. 538; Wilson v. Daniel, 94 Fla. 1140, 115 So. 527; Skipper v. Handley, 98 Fla. 1253, 121 So. 792. These and similar cases have been decided since the Florda land boom. The contention is made that the title to Chapter 20235 is not broad enought to cover the body of the Act and therefor…
-
Etta Rosenthal v. Largo Land Co., 146 Fla. 81 (Fla. 1941)…r the $7,500.00 advanced, but during the interim made no effort to abide by or .carry out the provisions of the contract. See Realty Securities Corp. v. Johnson, 93 Fla. 46, 111 So. 532; Chubb v. Chadwick, 93 Fla. 114, 111 So. 538; Wilson v. Daniel, 94 Fla. 1140, 115 So. 527; Skipper v. Handley, 98 Fla. 1253, 121 So. 792. The record shows that evidence was taken before a special Master as to the claims and interest of Tom Lowe in and to the property described in the bill of complaint. The findings and repo…
-
Skipper v. Handley, 98 Fla. 1253 (Fla. 1929)…of such contract. In such a case, the doctrine announced in Taylor v. Rawlins does not apply. See Realty Securities Corporation v. Johnson, 93 Fla. 46, 111 So. R. 532; Chubb v. Chadwick, 93 Fla. 114, 111 So. R. 538; Wilson v. Daniel, 115 So. R. 527, 94 Fla. 1140. This made it unnecessary for the bill to allege that the complainant had returned or- offered to return the partial payments made, in order to entitle the complainant to the removal of the cloud by the cancellation of the record of the contract. I…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Realty Sec. Corp. v. Johnson, 93 Fla. 46 (Fla. 1927)
- Taylor v. Rawlins, 90 Fla. 621 (Fla. 1925)
- Taylor v. Rawlins, 86 Fla. 279 (Fla. 1923)
- Chubb v. J. Harker Chadwick & Co., 93 Fla. 114 (Fla. 1927)