MAYOR SPEISBERGER
v.
NEWMAN REALTY COMPANY, INC., ROBERT J. NEWMAN; AND HOLLYWOOD AMUSEMENTS, INC.
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.
Mayor Speisberger sought specific performance of an alleged written agreement to lease the Hollywood Theatre for ten years. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the Chancellor's denial of specific performance, holding that the evidence failed to establish the agent's authority to bind the principal and that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in refusing equitable relief where the complainant's right was doubtful and sharp practice was evident.
The Court affirmed the Chancellor's denial of specific performance, holding that specific performance is discretionary in equity and not a matter of right, and that the trial court's discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous, particularly where the complainant's right is in dispute and doubtful.
“An enforcement in equity of the specific performance of a contract to make a lease is not a matter of right or a matter of course such as the right to foreclose a mortgage or to recover a judgment at law, but rests in the sound discretion of the court, controlled by well established doctrine of equitable jurisprudence.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that specific performance in equity is discretionary, not a matter of right, and is governed by equitable jurisprudence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMayor Speisberger filed a bill for specific performance to enforce a lease agreement for the Hollywood Theatre. The alleged lease was signed by Robert…
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 Ratification Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
— Mayor Speisberger filed a bill for specific performance of an alleged written agreement to lease the Hollywood Theatre for a term of ten years.
Upon a trial of the controversy on its merits the Chancellor made a specific finding that the evidence in the case wholly failed to sustain the complainant’s contention that *343one Robert J. Newman, an alleged agent for the defendant, was authorized to sign the rental agreement sought to be enforced against the principal and defendant, Newman Realty Company, a corporation, the appellee in this appeal.
The Chancellor further adversely decided on its merits (on conflicting evidence) the additional contention of complainant below and appellant here to the effect that the alleged contract had been subsequently lawfully ratified by delivery of same to, and acceptance of same on the part of and by, one C. R. Gilliland, as contended for on complainant’s behalf.
So the principal and controlling issue tried and decided by the Chancellor below was wholly one of disputed facts, as to which an examination of the record discloses to us as an appellate court there is no reversible error in the Chancellor’s conclusion that the circumstances shown by the evidence do not warrant a decree for specific performance as prayed in the court below. In addition, the Chancellor affirmatively found and decreed sharp practice and overreaching attempted on complainant’s behalf against defendant which in the Court’s opinion rendered a decree of specific performance “highly inequitable” under the facts shown and established by the evidence.
An enforcement in equity of the specific performance of a contract to make a lease is not a matter of right or a matter of course such as the right to foreclose a mortgage or to recover a judgment at law, but rests in the sound discretion of the court, controlled by well established doctrine of equitable jurisprudence. McCaskill Co. v. Dekle, 88 Fla. 285, 102 Sou. Rep. 252; Martin v. Albee, 93 Fla. 941, 113 Sou. Rep. 415, Williams v. Neeld-Gordon Co., 86 Fla. 59, 97 Sou. Rep. 315; Bowling v. Nat’s Convoy & Trucking Co., 101 Fla. 634, 135 Sou. Rep. 541.
*344The discretion of a Chancellor in refusing specific performance of a particular contract for sale or loss of real estate, especially where the right as asserted by the complainant is in dispute, and doubtful as to its having been properly derived, will not be disturbed on appeal unless demonstrated to be clearly erroneous. Witham v. Shepard, 84 Fla. 75, 92 Sou. Rep. 685; Orlando Realty Board Bldg. Corporation v. Hilpert, 93 Fla. 954, 113 Sou. Rep. 100; Daubmyre v. Hunter, 86 Fla. 326, 98 Sou. Rep. 69.
So applying the foregoing well settled principles of equity jurisprudence to the record in the present appeal, as to which a motion to dismiss same as frivolous has been interposed by appellee under Section 4639 C. G. L., 2920 R. G. S., it appears that the decree should be affirmed on the authority of Treat v. State, ex rel. Mitton, 121 Fla. 509, (first headnote) 163 Sou. Rep. 883 — the motion to dismiss as frivolous being denied but the decree affirmed on the ground that such must be its inevitable disposition if postponed for later consideration.
Affirmed on motion to dismiss appeal as frivolous.
. Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCutcheon v. Nat'l Acceptance Corp., 143 Fla. 663 (Fla. 1940)…matter of right or of course, but the enforcement thereof rests in the sound judicial discretion of the court, controlled by acknowledged and well established principles of equitable jurisprudence. See Speisberger v. Newman Realty Co., 125 Fla. 342, 169 So. 859; Scott v. City of Venice, 123 Fla. 772, 167 So. 654; Trimble v. Hart, 130 Fla. 396, 177 So. 710. The order dismissing the bill of complaint appealed from in this case is hereby reversed for further proceedings in the lower court not inconsistent wi…
-
Mortg. Inv. Found., Inc. v. Eller, 93 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1957)…under the circumstances of this case. Specific performance is a remedy which lies within the discretion of the chancellor, but this discretion is controlled by well-established doctrines of equitable jurisprudence. Speisberger v. Newman Realty Co., 125 Fla. 342, 169 So. 859; Williams v. Neeld-Gordon Co., 86 Fla. 59, 97 So. 315. In the case before us it is undisputed that both the buyer and seller knew of the possibility of an adverse claim when the contract which appellant seeks to enforce was entered, an…
-
Ulrich v. Reineking, 144 Fla. 284 (Fla. 1940)…a contract is not a matter of right, or of course, but the enforcement thereof rests in the sound judicial discretion of the court, controlled by acknowledged principles of equitable jurisprudence. See Speisberger v. Newman Realty Co., 125 Fla. 342, 169 So. 859; Scott v. City of Venice, 123 Fla. 772, 167 So. 654; Trimble v. Hart, 130 Fla. 396, 177 So. 710. The plaintiff must be willing, ready and able to perform the terms of [*292] the contract sought to be enforced. See Tate v. Pensacola, Gulf, Land & Dev…
Authorities Cited
- Treat v. State, 121 Fla. 509 (Fla. 1935)
- Bowling v. Nat'l Convoy & Trucking Co., 101 Fla. 634 (Fla. 1931)
- Martin v. Albee, 93 Fla. 941 (Fla. 1927)
- Orlando Realty Bd. Bldg. Corp. v. Hilpert, 93 Fla. 954 (Fla. 1927)
- The R. E. L. McCaskill Co. v. Dekle, 88 Fla. 285 (Fla. 1924)
- Williams v. The Neeld-Gordon Co., 86 Fla. 59 (Fla. 1923)
- Daubmyre v. Hunter, 86 Fla. 326 (Fla. 1923)
- Lawman v. State, 98 So. 69 (Ala. Ct. App. 1922)
- Witham v. Shepard, 84 Fla. 75 (Fla. 1922)