GEORGE E. RICE AND M. R. PRINE, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF J. W. PRINE, DECEASED, APPELLANTS,
v.
A. J. FORE, 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 a lower court's decision to dismiss a suit for specific performance, finding that the bill of complaint lacked proper parties complainant.
No, the bill of complaint lacked proper parties complainant, and therefore, the lower court's dismissal was not in error.
“This is a suit for specific performance brought by the assignee of a half interest of the vendee joined by the administrator of the vendee’s estate, the defendant being the vendor in the' contract to sell real estate.”
Describes the nature of the lawsuit and the parties involved.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants, the assignee of a vendee's interest and the vendee's estate administrator, filed a suit for specific performance against the vendor of a r…
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 Demurrer cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This is a suit for specific performance brought by the assignee of a half interest of the vendee joined by the administrator of the vendee’s estate, the defendant being the vendor in the' contract to sell real estate. An appeal was taken from a decree dismissing the bill on demurrer sustained.
The cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree 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 decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed for lack of proper parties complainant. See 36 Cyc. 764; 20 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 422; Pomeroy’s Specific Performance (3rd Ed.) Section 488.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and. Buford, J. J., concur. Terrell. C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur.