ROSE MORGANTHALER, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
EDWARD J. HOLL, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 reversed a judgment in favor of assignees of a real estate purchase contract, holding that the assignors' inability to convey good title to the property constituted a valid defense to the action for recovery of installment payments.
A vendor unable to make good title as agreed cannot compel the vendee to observe the contract. The trial court erred in sustaining demurrers to pleas alleging the vendor's lack of title and failure of consideration, as these pleas constituted good defenses to the action.
“Where a vendor is unable to make a good title as agreed he cannot in general compel the vendee to observe the agreement.”
Establishes the fundamental principle of contract law that a vendor lacking marketable title cannot enforce the purchase contract against the vendee.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs were assignees of a contract for purchase and sale of real estate and brought suit against the contract purchasers (defendants) to recover …
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 Failure Of Consideration cases and more on FLexlaw
This was a suit brought by the assignees of a contract for the purchase and sale of certain real estate against the contract purchasers to recover certain installments on the purchase price. Judgment was in favor of the plaintiff in the court below.
The defendants took writ of error. There was a demurrer to the declaration which was overruled. Then certain pleas were filed. The pleas numbered 2, 3, 7, and 8 were demurred to and the demurrer sustained. Plea No. 2 alleged:
“That the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in and to the premises described in the declaration and in the contract declared upon, and is wholly unable to convey to these defendants the lands described therein.
Plea No. 3 alleged:
“That the plaintiff, nor his assignors, to-wit: Charles EL Eldred and his wife, Edith Eldred, have any right, title or interest in and to the premises described in the declaration and in the contract declared upon, and are wholly unable to convey to these defendants any title to said described property.”
*454Plea No. 7 alleged a failure of consideration in that the vendors named in the contract had never owned the property which they agreed to convey; that they had ■never acquired title to the property but at the time the contract was made those contracting parties were under contract with one Elva A. Simpson to purchase the property from Simpson but that they abandoned their said contract to purchase the said property and by contract and agreement with the said Simpson relinquished to the said Simpson all right, title and interest in and to the property described in the .contract and described in the declaration, and alleged that neither the original vendors named in the contract nor the plaintiffs had any right, title or interest in the lands described in the contract and for which the obligation sued on was given.
The 8th plea set up the same defense.
Demurrer was sustained to these pleas.
The allegations of the pleas above referred to constituted a good defense to the action and demurrers thereto should have been overruled.
In McKinnon vs. Johnson, 54 Fla. 538, 45 Sou. 451, it was said:
“Where a vendor is unable to make a good title as agreed he cannot in general compel the vendee to observe the agreement. 6 Pomeroy’s Eq. Jur. jj 808 et seq; 4 Pomeroy’s Eq. Jur. jj 1407.”
See also Gable vs. Simmons, 129 Sou. 777, 39 Cyc. 1924 et seq., 27 R.C.L. 517.
For the reasons stated, the judgment should be reversed and it is so ordered.
Reversed.
Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harper v. Bronson, 104 Fla. 75 (Fla. 1932)…o convey the land to Kilcoyne, and the record shows that never, at any time, has Naberhuis been in a position to convey the land. That would be a good defense to any action by Naberhuis against Kilcoyne upon the contract.” In Morganthaler vs. Holl, 101 Fla. 452, 134 So. 223, suit was brought by the assignees of a contract for the sale and purchase of certain real estate against the contract purchaser to recover certain installments on the purchase price. The defendant pleaded: (a) that the plaintiff had no…
Authorities Cited
- McKinnon v. Johnson, 54 Fla. 538 (Fla. 1907)
- Gabel v. Simmons, 100 Fla. 526 (Fla. 1930)