LIZZIE C. FARRIOR, BY C. M. COX, GUARDIAN AD LITEM,
v.
HUGHES-LAW LUMBER CO. ET AL.
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.
In this materialman's lien foreclosure case, the Florida Supreme Court held that a contract for the sale of lumber to a person of unsound mind cannot be avoided when the contract is executed, adequate consideration has been given and received, the other party acted in good faith without knowledge of the insanity, and the parties cannot be restored to their original position.
The court held that such a contract cannot be avoided. An executed contract entered into in good faith without knowledge of the other party's insanity, for adequate consideration from which the insane person has benefited, will be upheld and the insane person or their representatives cannot avoid it when the parties cannot be placed back in status quo ante.
“According to the weight of authority, however, where there has been no inquisition or adjudication of insanity, a contract entered into upon an adequate consideration of which the insane person has had the benefit, and made by the other contracting party in good faith, without fraud or undue influence, and without knowledge of the insanity or reason to suspect it, will be upheld against the insane person or his representatives, and it cannot be avoided by them, where the parties cannot be put in status quo.”
Establishes the governing legal rule that executed contracts with insane persons can be enforced when conditions are met
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLizzie C. Farrior, represented by guardian ad litem C. M. Cox, was sued by Hughes-Law Lumber Company to foreclose a materialman's lien for lumber alle…
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 Restoration Of Status Quo cases and more on FLexlaw
This was a suit to foreclose a materialman’s lien. A plea was interposed in the answer, as follows:
“Said Guardian Ad Litm, further answering said paragraph three, says that in the event any such lumber was so contracted for, ordered or purchased by Lizzie C. Farrior from said complainant, Hughes-Law Lumber Company, that it was contracted for, purchased by or ordered at a time when the said Lizzie C. Farrior was not of sound mind and was incapable of entering into a contract binding herself to any obligation or contract; that, prior to the date, February 1, 1932, when it is alleged that the delivery of said lumber began, and at all times since, the said Lizzie C. Farrior was not of sound mind and was not capable of entering into any contract binding herself or her property for the payment of any lumber, debt or obligation.”
This was stricken on motion and appeal is from that order. The contract was not executory, but was executed and the claim for lien grew out of the performance of the *210contract. There was no offer to place parties' in status quo ante, nor does it appear that this can he accomplished.
In 32 C. J. 734 it is said:
“According to the weight of authority, however, where there has been no inquisition or adjudication of insanity, a contract entered into upon an adequate consideration of which the insane person has' had the benefit, and made by the other contracting party in good faith, without fraud or undue influence, and without knowledge of the insanity or reason to suspect it, will be upheld against the insane person or his representatives, and it cannot be avoided by them, where the parties' cannot be put in status quo. The liability under the contract in such a case will be upheld, not so much upon the theory of enforcing the promise as upon the idea that the insane person ought not to enjoy the full, adequate and irrestorable benefit of a contract ordinarily merely voidable, without himself complying with the terms thereof; and such liability is imposed also on the principle that, where a loss must be borne by one of two innocent persons it shall be borne by him who occasioned it.”
There is no intimation in the pleadings of fraud, deception, bad faith or undue influence.
The text above quoted is sustained by numerous authorities cited in note appended thereto.
The order should be affirmed. It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
■ Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hassey v. Williams, 127 Fla. 734 (Fla. 1937)…de at law or in equity in favor of the grantor or his representatives except on condition that the price paid be restored to the grantee and the parties placed back in the condition they were before the transaction. Farrior v. Hughes-Law Lumber Co., 113 Fla. 209, 151 So. 377; Sheppard v. Cherry, 118 Fla. 473, 159 So. 661; Riggan v. Green, 80 N. C. 236, 30 Am. St. Rep. 77; Eaton v. Eaton, 37 N. J. L. 109; Gribben v. Maxwell, 34 Kan. 8, 7 Pac. 584; El [*740] dredge v. Palmer, 185 Ill. 618, 57 N. E. 770; 32 C.…
-
Perper v. Edell, 160 Fla. 477 (Fla. 1948)…sition, for a fair consideration, without notice of the infirmity and before an adjudication of insanity, and has been executed in whole or in part, unless the parties can be restored to their original position. In Farrior v. Hughes-Law Lumber Co., 113 Fla. 209, 151 So. 377, we in part said: “ ‘According to the weight of authority, however, where there has been no inquisition or adjudication of insanity, a contract entered into upon an adequate consideration of which the insane person has had the benefit,…
-
Vasquez v. Simms, 75 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1954)…pellee to allege and prove that the defendant had knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that plaintiff was mentally incompetent at the time the settlement was effected. On this question this Court in the case of Farrior v. Hughes-Law Lumber Co., 113 Fla. 209, 151 So. 377, said: “ ‘According to the weight of authority,, however, where there has been no inquisition or adjudication of insanity, a contract entered into upon an adequate consideration of which the insane person has had the benefit, and made…