E. M. GOLLNICK AND ANNA E. GOLLNICK, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
WALTER JAMES, 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 general demurrer, finding that a bill of complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action for recovery of funds paid under a land purchase contract due to the seller's alleged breach.
No, the trial court did not err in overruling the general demurrer. The bill of complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action for the recovery of the money paid under the contract.
“The order overruling the demurrer should be affirmed on authority of the opinions in the cases of Barclay v. Bank of Osceola County, 82 Fla. 72, 89 Sou. 357; Musselwhite v. Olson, 60 Fla. 342, 53 Sou. 944, and Wheeler v. Sullivan, 90 Fla. 711, 106 Sou. 876, and it is so ordered.”
This quote states the court's decision and the legal precedent relied upon for affirming the lower court's ruling.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceComplainants sought to recover $1,000 paid under an executory contract to purchase land and to establish a lien on the property. They alleged the defe…
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
[*1232] Buford, J.
This is an appeal from order overruling a general demurrer to an amended bill of complaint in a suit in which the complainant in the court below sought to recover the sum of $1,000.00 paid under an executory contract to purchase certain lands from the defendants in the court below, and to have decreed a lien on the property embraced in the contract. It was alleged that a breach of the contract had occurred on the part of the defendants by reason of the failure of the vendors, who were the defendants in the court below, to comply with that condition of the contract contained in the following language:
“The seller is to furnish an abstract showing his title to be good and merchantable, but in the event that the title shall not be found good and merchantable, the seller agrees to use reasonable diligence to make the said title good and merchantable, and shall have a reasonable time so to do, and if after reasonable diligence on his part said title shall not be made good and merchantable within a reasonable time, the seller may, at his option, return the money this day paid and all moneys that may have been paid to him under this contract, and thereupon he shall be released from all obligations hereunder. ’ ’
The order overruling the demurrer should be affirmed on authority of the opinions in the cases of Barclay v. Bank of Osceola County, 82 Fla. 72, 89 Sou. 357; Musselwhite v. Olson, 60 Fla. 342, 53 Sou. 944, and Wheeler v. Sullivan, 90 Fla. 711, 106 Sou. 876, and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leesburg State Bank v. Lyle, 99 Fla. 535 (Fla. 1930)…and refused to refund the money paid by the vendee under the contract and that the parties and subject matter of the suit are each within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, will be held good as against demurrer. See Goolnick et ux. v. James, 94 Fla. 1231, 115 So. R. 529. In Roth v. Gardner, 96 Fla. 691, 118 So. R. 728, there was no written contract which is sought to be rescinded and cancelled. Neither was there any allegation of the inability on the part of defendants to convey, or that they refus…
-
John Ringling Ests., Inc. v. White, 105 Fla. 581 (Fla. 1932)…initial payment made thereunder, and neither of these benefits could be had at law. When a Court of Equity assumes jurisdiction for one purpose it will grant full relief. See Leesburg State Bank vs. Lyle, 99 Fla. 535, 126 So. 791; Dominick vs. James 94 Fla. 1231, 115 So. 529. Norris vs. Eikenberry, 103 Fla. 104, 137 So. 128; Wolfie vs. Daughtery, 103 Fla. 432, 137 So. 717. It is incumbent upon a complainant to allege in his bill clearly and definitely, every fact that is necessary to entitle him to relief,…
-
Allen v. Bowman, 152 Fla. 325 (Fla. 1943)…tive, as a matter of record. That such an abstract was not tendered appellant, is freely admitted. Appellant was justified, therefore, in refusing to accept title. Barclay v. Bank of Osceola County, 82 Fla. 72, 89 So. 357; Gollnick et ux. v. James, 94 Fla. 1231, 115 So. 529. Having reached this conclusion, no necessity exists for any comment upon the testimony. For the sake of completeness, however, we make this observation: conceding the soundness of appellee’s contention (a point which we have determine…
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
- Wheeler v. Sullivan, 90 Fla. 711 (Fla. 1925)
- Broadnax v. State, 106 So. 876 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926)
- Musselwhite v. Svend Oleson, 60 Fla. 342 (Fla. 1910)
- Barclay v. Bank of Osceola Cnty., 82 Fla. 72 (Fla. 1921)