FRANK E. WOOD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND HUTCHINSON SHOE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
CHARLES BROADWAY ROUSS, INC., A CORPORATION, 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 reversed an order overruling a demurrer, holding that a bill for specific performance of a contract to purchase a promissory note was not maintainable because the note and its security were worthless at the time of the alleged breach, meaning there was an adequate remedy at law for damages.
No, a bill for specific performance is not maintainable in this situation because the worthlessness of the note and its security means the value is not uncertain or conjectural, and an adequate remedy at law for damages exists.
“Such a bill is maintainable where the value of the note is uncertain and conjectural.”
Establishes the general rule for when specific performance of a note purchase contract is appropriate.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe complainant filed a bill for specific performance of a contract to purchase a promissory note. The bill alleged that the note was uncollectable fr…
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 Specific Performance Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order overruling defendant’s demurrer to a bill for the specific performance of a contract to purchase from complainant a promissory note. Such a bill is maintainable where the value of the note is uncertain and conjectural. See Pomeroy’s Specific Performance, 3rd Ed., Sec. 20. But in this case the bill shows that the note was uncollectable against the maker and that a mortgage given to secure its payment was worthless, there being several outstanding prior mortgages on the property for more than its value. As the bill shows that at the time of the alleged breach of the agreement to purchase the note, the note and security given therefor were worthless, and therefore the value of the note not being uncertain or conjectural, there was an adequate remedy at law in a suit for damages for breach of the contract of purchase. Hence there was no equity in the bill, and the demurrer thereto should have been sustained.
Reversed and remanded.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCutcheon v. Nat'l Acceptance Corp., 143 Fla. 663 (Fla. 1940)…table to enforce the contract requiring the payment to the plaintiff of some $20,000.00 for such a small and insufficient consideration. See Calumet Co. v. Oil City Corp., 114 Fla. 531, 154 So. 141; Frank E. Wood Co. v. Charles Broadway Rouss, Inc., 110 Fla. 16, 147 So. 855. The case of Graham v. Herlong, 50 Fla. 521, 39 So. 111, was a suit in equity to require Graham to deliver to Herlong [*672] certain shares of stock which had been pledged to secure the payment of described indebtedness. The bill of co…