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's facts aligned with established precedent regarding supplemental agreements.
The court held that the facts alleged brought the case within the rules of Chubb v. Chadwick and Wilson v. Daniel, not 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 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 a supplemental agreement, the effect of which was contested. The court considered the facts alleged in light of prior rulings.…
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 affirmed, 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 decreed 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, O. 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
-
Barnett v. Dollison, 125 Fla. 254 (Fla. 1936)…nincumbered in the vendor. The only equity the vendor has is to have the first contract cancelled of record. He can get possession by ejectment. There is nothing to foreclose. See also Wilson v. Daniel, 94 Fla. 1140, 115 So. 527. Skipper v. Handley, 99 Fla. 382, 126 So. 386; Pierce v. Stevenson, 109 Fla. 517, 147 So. 842. Davis, J., concurs.…
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)