G. B. SKIPPER, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT HANDLEY, 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 lower court orders after initially reversing them, determining the case fell under established legal precedents despite a supplemental agreement.
The court held that the facts alleged in the case bring it within the rules announced in Chubb v. Chadwick and Wilson v. Daniel, and not within the rules stated in Taylor v. Rawlins.
“Notwithstanding the contention as to the effect of the supplemental agreement referred to in the former opinion, the facts alleged in this case bring it within the rules announced in Chubb v. Chadwick, 93 Fla. 114, 111 So. R. 538; Wilson v. Daniel, 94 Fla. 1140, 115 So. R. 527, and not within the rules stated in Taylor v. Rawlins, 86 Fla. 279, 97 So. R. 714; 35 A. L. R. 271; 90 Fla. 621, 106 So. R. 424.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for its final decision, referencing specific prior cases.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved orders appealed by G. B. Skipper and others. A prior decision had reversed these orders, but a rehearing was granted. The court cons…
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.
Per Curiam.
The orders herein appealed from were reversed, Skipper v. Handley, 121 So. R. 792, but a rehearing was granted. Upon further consideration the Court has determined that notwithstanding the contention as to the effect of the supplemental agreement referred to in the former opinion, the facts alleged in this case bring it within the rules announced in Chubb v. Chadwick, 93 Fla. 114, 111 So. R. 538; Wilson v. Daniel, 94 Fla. 1140, 115 So. R. 527, and not within the rules stated in Taylor v. Rawlins, 86 Fla. 279, 97 So. R. 714; 35 A. L. R. 271; 90 Fla. 621, 106 So. R. 424. It is therefore considered, ordered and de creed that the former decree herein reversing the orders appealed from is vacated and it is now ordered and decreed that the orders appealed from are hereby affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Strum and Brown, J. J., concur. Ellis and Buford, J. J., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Keys Lobster, Inc. v. Ocean Divers, Inc., 468 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…vendor and vendee was created. See Foxworth v. Maddox, 103 Fla. 32, 137 So. 161 (1931). Because the right of first refusal had merged into the contract to purchase, see Skipper v. Handley, 98 Fla. 1253, 121 So. 792 (1929), vacated on other grounds, 98 Fla. 1256, 126 So. 386 (1930), the court could not have granted specific performance on the basis of a breach of the first refusal provision in the lease, but only upon the subsequently formed contract to purchase, and, thus, this count of the complaint shoul…
Authorities Cited
- Taylor v. Rawlins, 90 Fla. 621 (Fla. 1925)
- Taylor v. Rawlins, 86 Fla. 279 (Fla. 1923)
- Chubb v. J. Harker Chadwick & Co., 93 Fla. 114 (Fla. 1927)
- Wilson v. Daniel, 94 Fla. 1140 (Fla. 1927)