J. F. CRAMER AND L. A. CRAMER, PARTNERS, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF CRAMER & CRAMER, APPELLANTS,
v.
EDWARD EICHELBERGER, A. C. DEBOBEN, GEORGE WILLIAMS, STELLA WILLIAMS, HIS WIFE; WILLIAM S. HARWOOD, EDNA E. HARWOOD, HIS WIFE, AND OCEAN CITY LUMBER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Contractors who constructed a building sought to enforce a mechanic's lien against the property owners and mortgage holders. The trial court found the contractors had a valid lien but subordinate to prior mortgage liens and material suppliers' liens, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed that decision.
The contractor's mechanic's lien is subordinate to prior purchase money mortgage liens and material suppliers' liens on the property.
“This is a suit to enforce a mechanic's lien upon a building partially constructed by complainant contractors, and the lots of land upon which it is located.”
Establishes the nature of the action and the relief sought by the appellants.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCramer & Cramer were contractors hired to construct a building on property owned by Eichelberger and others. The defendants included the property owne…
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 Enforcement Of Mechanic'S Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This is a suit to enforce a mechanic’s lien upon a building partially constructed by complainant contractors, and the lots of land upon which it is located.
The complainants, who are the appellants here, are the contractors for the building. The defendants are owners of the property for whom the building was agreed to be constructed; two holders of mortgages on the premises and one holder of lien for material used in the building. The decree awarded to complainants a lien upon the property for that amount, or practically so, of their claim, but found their lien to be subordinate to the mortgage liens and the lien of the material-men. The appeal is from this decree. The amount of complainant’s recovery is not complained of. The controversy is upon the priority of the liens. This is the decisive question on the appeal. There is a specific finding by the chancellor of priority of the mortgage liens and the material-men’s lien, and they are adjudged to be superior to the lien of the complainants. The mortgages are for purchase money due for the property upon which the building is located.
The evidence is voluminous and in some respect in conflict, but it is not conceived that a discussion of it would be of value. There is ample evidence to support the finding of the chancellor. The case is clearly within the established rule that on questions of fact specific findings of the chancellor will not be reversed, unless it clearly appears that there is error in his conclusions. Edney v. Stinson, 90 Fla. 335, 105 So. R. 821; Simpson v. First National Bank, 74 Fla. 539, 77 So. R. 204; Baggett v. Otis, 65 Fla. 447, 62 So. R. 362; Watterman v. Higgins, 28 Fla. 660, 10 So. R. 97.
Therefore, the decree will be affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gardiner v. Goertner, 110 Fla. 377 (Fla. 1932)…101 Fla. 333, 134 So. 525; Fulton v. Clewiston Limited, 100 Fla. 257, 129 So. 773; Creel v. Abernathy, 102 Fla. 461, 136 So. 229; Jordon v. Jordan, 100 Fla. 1576, 132 So. 466; Farrington v. Harrison, 95 Fla. 769; 116 So. 497; Cramer v. Eichelberger, 96 Fla. 683, 118 So. 737; Shipley-Young Co. v. Young, 97 Fla. 46, 119 So. 522; Weaver-Loughridge Lbr. Co. v., Kirkland, 99 Fla. 426, 131 So. 784; Hancoy Holding Co. v. Lambright, 101 Fla. 128, 133 So. 631; Turnipseed v. Brown, 102 Fla. 542; 136 So. 343 and othe…
-
Thomas v. Thompson, 114 Fla. 833 (Fla. 1934)…la. 301, 112 So. 569; Lightsey v. Washington Park Properties, Inc., 93 Fla. 531, 112 So. 555; Baker v. Baker, 94 Fla. 1001, 114 So. 661 ; Rundel v. Gordon, 92 Fla. 1110, 111 So. 386; Johns v. Seeley, 94 Fla. 851, 114 So. 452; Cramer v. Eichelberger, 96 Fla. 683, 118 So. 737; Sperry v. City of Tampa, 96 Fla. 567, 118 So. 816; Roland v. Mathews, 98 Fla. 695, 124 So. 34; Hoffman Construction Co. v. Ward, 97 Fla. 530, 121 So. 800; Shipley-Young Corp. v. Young, 97 Fla. 46, 119 So. 522; Troutman v. Couture, 98 F…
-
Heinisch v. Mills, 100 Fla. 1600 (Fla. 1931)…case is well within the established rule in this and other jurisdictions that on questions of fact findings of the chancellor will not be reversed, unless it is made clearly to appear that' his findings are erroneous. Cramer v. Eichelberger, et al., 96 Fla. 683, 118 So. R. 737, and cases there cited. The decree of the chancellor should be affirmed and it is so ordered.' Affirmed. Whitfield, P. J., and Strum, J., concur. Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.…
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
- Aden E. Waterman v. Reola A. Higgins, 28 Fla. 660 (Fla. 1891)
- Simpson v. The First Nat'l Bank of Pensacola, 74 Fla. 539 (Fla. 1917)
- Edney v. Stinson, 90 Fla. 335 (Fla. 1925)
- Baggott v. Otis, 65 Fla. 447 (Fla. 1913)