LEESBURG STATE BANK, A CORPORATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR R. J. TULLER AND CELIA E. TULLER, HIS WIFE AND ROY J. TULLER AND CELIE E. TULLER, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROGER B. LYLE, 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 decree in an equity suit seeking cancellation of an executory real estate contract, an accounting, return of purchase money paid, and a lien against the property. The court held that equity jurisdiction was proper because the complaint sought both rescission and equitable relief (lien on property), which are not available at law.
The court held that while a suit merely to recover purchase money would require an action at law, the complaint stated valid grounds for equity jurisdiction because it sought both rescission and cancellation of the contract and adjudication of a lien against the property—equitable remedies unavailable at law.
“If the plaintiff had brought his suit merely to recover the purchase money which he had paid on the lands he would have had no standing in a court of equity. His proper remedy would have been by a suit in general assumpsit.”
Establishes that recovery of money alone is a law remedy; equity jurisdiction requires additional equitable relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeesburg State Bank, as trustee, entered into an executory contract to purchase real estate from Roger B. Lyle. The contract was recorded and time was…
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 Suit For Accounting cases and more on FLexlaw
Buford, J.
This was a suit in equity to cancel and annul a contract for the purchase and sale of real estate the same being an executory contract for an accounting between the parties, for a decree for the return of the money paid by the vendee to the vendor, and to declare a lien upon all the lands described in the contract to enforce the repayment of the sum paid by the vendee to the vendor. There was a demurrer to the bill of complaint. The demurrer was overruled. Final decree was in favor of the complainant and the defendant appealed.
The question presented to this Court is whether or not the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the bill, it being contended that the plaintiff had a full, adequate and complete remedy at law, and, therefore, was not entitled to maintain the cause in equity.
As above stated, the suit was based upon an executory contract of which time was not made of the essence. The complainant was upon the face of the contract bound to make certain further payments on the lands described in the contract, which contract had been duly recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County in which the land was situated.
If the plaintiff had brought his suit merely to recover the purchase money which he had paid on the lands he would have had no standing in a court of equity. His proper remedy would have been by a suit in general assumpsit. See Cox v. Grose, 97 Fla. 848, 122 So. R. 513, and cases there cited.
In this case, however, there were two other material matters of equitable relief sought. The complainant sought a decree of the court adjudicating the rescission and cancellation of the contract and further sought the adjudication of a lien against the property described in the contract for the amount of the purchase money theretofore paid under the terms of the contract. These two things were matters of equity jurisdiction and sought benefits which could not be obtained by complainant in a court of law. A court of equity having assumed jurisdiction for the adjudication of matters cognizable only in equity will proceéd to adjudicate all proper questions between the parties presented by the pleadings.
A bill of complaint seeking a decree for the rescission and cancellation of an executory contract for the purchase and sale of real estate and the adjudication of a lien against the property described in the contract to enforce the repayment of a part of the purchase price paid by the vendee to the vendor and the return of such purchase price by the vendor to the vendee and alleging sufficient facts to show that the contract had been breached by the vendor, that the contract had been recorded, that money has been paid by the vendee to the vendor, that by the terms of the contract the vendee without the rescission of the contract may be held liable for further payments and that the vendor has failed and refused to refund the money paid by the vendee under the contract and that the parties and subject matter of the suit are each within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, will be held good as against demurrer. See Goolnick et ux. v. James, 94 Fla. 1231, 115 So. R. 529.
In Roth v. Gardner, 96 Fla. 691, 118 So. R. 728, there was no written contract which is sought to be rescinded and cancelled. Neither was there any allegation of the inability on the part of defendants to convey, or that they refused to convey. In fact, it was positively stated in the bill of complaint in that case that the defendants did offer to convey prior to suit upon the very terms upon which the complainant claimed to have purchases, though it was alleged that that was done at a late day and that complainant had then changed its mind about purchasing the land. The opinion in that case is not applicable to the ease at bar. For the reasons stated, the decree appealed from 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Norris v. Jonas Eikenberry, 103 Fla. 104 (Fla. 1931)…the vendors that the alleged incumbrances and defects were held and considered to be material, nor that any demand was made that they be cured. It was held that the bill was subject to general demurrer. In Leesburg State Bank v. Lyle, 99 Fla. 535, 126 So. 791, this Court said: ‘ ‘ If the plaintiff had brought his suit merely to recover [*116] the purchase money- which he had paid on the lands he would have had no standing in a court of equity. His proper remedy would have been by a suit in general assum…
-
Royal v. Parado, 462 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…the local action rule applies. Parra v. Parra, 362 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Appellants’ statement of the law is correct but not controlling here. Appellee here sought rescission, an equitable remedy. Leesburg State Bank v. Lyle, 99 Fla. 535, 126 So. 791 (1930); Davis v. McGahee, 257 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). The local action rule does not apply with its full rigidity in suits in equity. Baum v. Corn, 167 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964), quoting 56 Am.Jur. 24: [Tjhis is because the decree made w…
-
Effie Smith Nichols v. Bodenwein, 107 Fla. 25 (Fla. 1932)…n, to ask for a rescission and cancellation of the contract, and when a Court of equity assumes jurisdiction for one purpose, it will grant full relief. John Ringling Estates vs. White, 105 Fla. 581, 141 So. 884. See also Leesburg St. Bank vs. Lyle, 99 Fla. 535, 126 So. 791. In the instant case the complainants are not satisfied with a rescission and cancellation of the contracts and notes given for a part of the purchase money. They also want a return of the initial or first payment made on each of the c…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cox v. Grose, 97 Fla. 848 (Fla. 1929)
- Gollnick v. James, 94 Fla. 1231 (Fla. 1928)
- Mack Roth, Inc. v. H. Marshall Gardiner and Wife, 96 Fla. 691 (Fla. 1928)