F. D. LEEPER, APPELLANT,
v.
O. D. GORMAN, J. W. CAMPBELL, R. B. MCLENDON, JOHN SEYBOLD, AND SEYBOLD BAKING COMPANY, A CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEES
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 lower court's dismissal of a bill of complaint seeking to engraft a resulting or constructive trust on certain lands. The court found that the evidence did not support the existence of such a trust.
No, the evidence did not establish the grounds for a resulting or constructive trust. The chancellor correctly resolved the conflicting evidence in favor of the appellees, finding no showing of loyalty and good faith to support such a trust.
“To support his title to the lands on which the trust was sought to be engrafted appellant relies on a parole contract followed by possession by him while appellees contend that appellant was nothing more than a tenant at sufferance.”
This quote outlines the core factual dispute regarding the appellant's claim to the land.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant sought to establish a resulting or constructive trust on lands based on a parole contract and possession, while appellees argued appellant w…
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 Tenancy At Sufferance cases and more on FLexlaw
— In this case appellant seeks to eng'raft •a resulting or constructive trust on certain lands in Dade County, the said trust being grounded on the doctrine announced by this Court in Quinn v. Phipps, 93 Fla. 805, 113 So. R. 419. Appellees on the other hand contend that a resulting or constructive trust was not proven and that, therefore, the case is ruled by Parramore v. Hampton, 55 Fla. 672, 45 So. R. 992. The Chancellor took the latter view and dismissed the bill of complaint.
We have examined the record and briefs of counsel carefully and find the view of the Chancellor well supported. To support his title to the lands on which the trust was sought to be engrafted appellant relies on a parole contract followed by possession by him while appellees contend that appellant was nothing more than a tenant at sufferance. The evidence on this point was in conflict but the chancellor resolved the conflict in favor of appellees and we are unable to say that he committed error in doing so. In the negotiations that took place between appellant and appellee, Gorman, no consideration passed from the former to the latter, they appear to have dealt at arm’s length, and there was in law no such showing of loyalty and good faith due from the one to the other as would support a constructive trust.
*130The decree of the chancellor is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Winton v. Stone, 107 Fla. 636 (Fla. 1933)…y relation, and the complainant did not furnish any purchase money nor have any legal interest or contract rights in the property purchased by the defendant, no constructive or resulting trust is shown. Parramore v. Hampton, supra; Leeper v. Gorman, 100 Fla. 128, 128 South. Rep. 876; Perry on Trusts (6th ed.) Sec. 227. See also Forrester v. Watts, 73 Fla. 514, 74 South. Rep. 519. The able opinion in this latter case by Mr. Chief Justice Browne is'most valuable. An examination of the evidence by us fails to…
Authorities Cited
- Porte F. Quinn v. Phipps, 113 So. 419 (Fla. 1927)
- Parramore v. Hampton, 55 Fla. 672 (Fla. 1908)