C. C. PEDRICK, APPELLANT,
v.
J. H. VIDAL AND D. P. FAGAN, CO-PARTNERS TRADING AND DOING BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA, UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF VIDAL'S GROCERTERIA, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed an order overruling a demurrer to an amended bill seeking specific performance of an oral lease agreement. The court held that an oral agreement for a lease can be specifically enforced when the lessee is put in possession, pays rent according to the agreed terms, and the lessor accepts payment, thus taking the case out of the statute of frauds.
The court held that equity will specifically enforce an oral agreement for a lease when the lessee has been put in possession, paid rent under the agreed terms that the lessor has accepted, and particularly where the lessee has made improvements with the lessor's knowledge. Such acts take the case out of the statute of frauds and entitle the lessee to equitable relief.
“a court of equity will specifically enforce an oral agreement for the execution of a lease of real estate when the lessee has been put into possession and has paid rent and the lessor has accepted it, under the terms agreed on, where such terms are clearly and definitely alleged and proven”
States the core holding that oral lease agreements can be enforced in equity when possession, rent payment, and acceptance occur.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn November 1923, Pedrick agreed with Vidal and Fagan to lease a store building for five years at specified monthly rates ($40, $45, and $50 per month…
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 Part Performance Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
Brown, J.
Appellees alleged in their bill that in November, 1923, they agreed with one Bush to purchase his grocery business provided they could secure a five year-lease on the store building; that they so advised the owner, appellant here, and he agreed to and with appellees to execute and deliver to appellees a lease to said store building for the sum of $40.00 per month until January 1, 1924; $45.00 per month from January 1, 1924, to January 1, 1925, and $50.00 per month from January 1,1925, said sums to be paid by appellees to appellant monthly. That after securing this agreement for lease, they bought the business from Bush, went into possession and spent $500.00 in making-substantial improvements on the property and $1,500.00 for additional equipment, all with appellants knowledge; that they remained in possession as tenants of appellant, paying their rent to him promptly each month and he accepting it, in accordance with the terms of lease agreed on. That appellant never executed the written lease as he agreed to do, but in January, 1926, demanded $80.00 per month rent, and refused to accept $50.00 per month tendered for the months of January and February, 1926, and notified appellees that they must vacate and surrender possession by March, 1926, whereupon the bill was filed, and prayed specific performance of the agreement to execute the lease and an injunction restraining the appellant from molesting their possession and from resorting to summary proceedings at law to evict them. The bill alleged that all rent due at the agreed rate was deposited in the registry of the court. Temporary injunction was granted. Demurrer was filed to the original bill, and an amended bill was filed. Demurrer to the amended bill was interposed and on hearing overruled. From this order this appeal was taken.
We think that the complainants in the court below were on the facts alleged entitled to the relief prayed, and that the orders complained of were without error. The great weight of authority is to the effect that a court of equity will specifically enforce an oral agreement for the execution of a lease of real estate when the lessee has been put into possession and has paid rent and the lessor has accepted it, under the terms agreed on, where such terms are clearly and definitely alleged and proven. In this case there was another element that strengthens the claim to equitable relief; that is, the making of improvements on the property with the lessor’s knowledge and acquiescence. But the putting of the lessees in possession and acceptance of payment of rents as orally agreed on is usually sufficient to take the case out of the statute of frauds. See Tate v. Jones, 16 Fla. 216; Maloy v. Boyette, 53 Fla. 956, 43 So. 243; Taylor v. Matthews, 53 Fla. 776, 44 So. 146; Demps v. Hogan, 57 Fla. 60, 48 So. 998; Clark & Lewis v. Gardner, 91 Fla. 1059, 109 So. 192; Reed v. Moore, 109 So. 86; Horne Haleyon Co. v. Miami Real Estate Co. 103 Sou. Rep. 403; 25 R. C. L. 258, 259, 284; Pomeroy Spec. Perf., 3rd Ed., Sections 96, 112, 115, 117, 118; Roberts v. Templeton, 80 Pac. 481, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 790 and note; Halligan v. Frey, 141 N. W. 944, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 112 and note. The reasoning underlying' this doctrine is fully set forth in the authorities cited.
The filing of the amended bill did not operate to dissolve the temporary injunction granted on application and hearing upon the original bill and affidavits which by its terms was to continue in effect until the further order of the court. Under the practice in this State a temporary injunction or restraining order ordinarily continues in effect for the time fixed by the order granting it, and, if no time is limited, until the final hearing, unless sooner dissolved. Scarlett, v. Hicks, 13 Fla. 314, 32 C. J. 344.
Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Strum, J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cottages v. Wegman, 57 So.2d 439 (Fla. 1951)…N.W. 1115. This Court has held that the taking of possession and, in addition, the payment of some part or all of the consideration is such part performance as will take an oral contract out of the Statute of Frauds. Pedrick v. Vidal, 95 Fla. 952, 116 So. 857; Clark & Lewis v. Gardner, 91 Fla. 1059, 109 So. 192; Demps v. Hogan, 57 Fla. 60, 48 So. 998. Hence, the latter of the two aforementioned rules is applicable in this State. However, if this case were controlled by the first mentioned general rule,…
-
Avery v. Marine Bank & Tr. Co., 216 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…nlarged the enclosures, [and] set out many fruit trees”, Tate’s Adm’r. v. Jones’ Ex’r., Fla.1877, 16 Fla. 216—or “has paid a part of the purchase price”, Clark & Lewis v. Gardner, 1926, 91 Fla. 1059, 109 So. 192; Pedrick v. Vidal, 1928, 95 Fla. 952, 116 So. 857; Dixon v. Clayton, Fla. 1950, 44 So. 2d 76; Crossman v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp., (1959) CA 5 Fla., 273 F. 2d 720; 80 A.L.R.2d 415; S. Lemel, Inc. v. 27th Avenue Farmer’s Market, Inc., Fla.App.1961, 126 So. 2d 167—or when he has substantially “impr…
-
S. Lemel, Inc. v. 27TH Ave. Farmers Mkt., Inc., 126 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)…m. . Although the majority opinion treats the holding over of the tenant as the equivalent of the putting of the tenant into possession, in order that the circumstances of this case come within the purview of the rule expressed in Pedrick v. Vidal, 95 Fla. 952, 116 So. 857, in most jurisdictions, the courts regard the mere continuance of possession acquired or held under some other contract or right as referable to such contract or right and therefore as not constituting such part performance as will take…1 / 2
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
- Maloy v. Boyett, 53 Fla. 956 (Fla. 1907)
- Taylor v. Mathews, 53 Fla. 776 (Fla. 1907)
- Hotel Halcyon Corp. & Thomas J. Peters v. Miami Real Est. Co., 89 Fla. 156 (Fla. 1925)
- Demps v. Hogan, 57 Fla. 60 (Fla. 1909)
- Tate's Administrator v. Jones' Executor, 16 Fla. 216 (Fla. 1828)
- Clark & Lewis, Inc. v. Gardner, 91 Fla. 1059 (Fla. 1926)
- Scarlett v. Hicks, 13 Fla. 314 (Fla. 1869)