SLARNEL BUILDERS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES CONCRETE PIPE CO., AN OHIO 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.
This case involves a mechanic's lien foreclosure suit where the defendant appealed the chancellor's decision. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding no error in the application of law to the facts.
No, the chancellor did not err. The court found that if the chancellor believed the testimony that the agreement was a direct promise to pay, then the contract is not within the purview of the Statute of Frauds.
“the chancellor having chosen to believe the testimony that the agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff was a direct promise to pay, the contract cannot be said to be within the purview of the Statute of Frauds, F.S.A. § 725.01.”
This quote establishes the core legal principle regarding the Statute of Frauds and the court's reliance on the chancellor's factual finding.
Appellant was the defendant in a mechanic's lien foreclosure suit. The chancellor made findings of fact, and the appellant argued that the chancellor …
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 Mechanic'S Lien Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was defendant in a mechanic’s lien foreclosure suit. It urges that the chancellor erred in several particulars in the application of the law to the findings of fact. We have examined appellant’s contention in each instance and do not find error.
Without discussing each contention, it may be pointed out that we considered the pivotal proposition to be that the chancellor having chosen to believe the testimony that the agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff was a direct promise to pay, the contract cannot be said to be within the purview of the Statute of Frauds, F.S.A. § 725.01. See Foley Lumber Co. v. Koester, Fla.1952, 61 So.2d 634, 639; First Nat. Bank of Tampa v. Southern Lumber & Supply Co., 106 Fla. 821, 145 So. 594, 597.
Affirmed.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Siegel v. Rowe, 71 So. 3d 205 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…But Ms. Leahy-Fernandez’s claim was for a direct promise to pay, not for a promise to pay another’s debt. Accordingly, her claim for money lent was not within the purview of the Statute of Frauds. See Larnel Builders, Inc. v. U.S. Concrete Pipe Co., 117 So. 2d 438, 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); see also Jim & Slim’s Tool Supply, Inc. v. Metro Cmtys. Corp., 328 So. 2d 213, 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (“The pivotal question on the applicability of [the Statute of Frauds] is whether the promise is, in fact, an actual assum…
-
Larnel Builders, Inc. v. U. S. Concrete Pipe Co., 119 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1960)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 117 So. 2d 438.…
-
Miller & Solomon, Inc. v. Concreform Co., 334 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…[*115] PER CURIAM. Affirmed upon authority of United States Casualty Company v. F. A. Johnson, Inc., Fla.App. 1960, 117 So. 2d 438.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Foley Lumber Co. v. Koester, 61 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1952)
- First Nat'l Bank of Tampa v. S. Lumber & Supply Co., 106 Fla. 821 (Fla. 1932)