RAY RICHARDSON, INC.,
v.
A. Y. CARLTON AND J. G. CARLTON
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 decision denying specific performance of a land contract because the contract was not signed by the wives of the sellers, and the chancellor found the buyer had an adequate remedy at law. The court emphasized that specific performance is a discretionary remedy not to be disturbed unless arbitrary or contrary to law.
No, the chancellor did not err in refusing specific performance. The court affirmed the chancellor's decision, noting that specific performance is a discretionary remedy and the evidence supported the chancellor's conclusion.
“This appeal is from a final decree refusing specific performance of a written contract to convey lands in Manatee County.”
Establishes the nature of the case and the lower court's decision being appealed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRay Richardson, Inc. sought specific performance of a written contract to convey land in Manatee County from A. Y. Carlton and J. G. Carlton. The cont…
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 Discretion Of The Court cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a final decree refusing specific performance of a written contract to convey lands in Manatee County. The matter of decreeing specific performance is one in the discretion of the chancellor and his decision will not be disturbed unless shown to be arbitrary or contrary to law.
The .contract was not signed by the wives of appellees so performance would be subject to their rights in the premises. The chancellor found that the plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law and that on the whole showing made, the case was not a proper one for specific performance. The- evidence has been examined and amply supports this conclusion.
The judgment of the chancellor is accordingly affirmed.
*230'Terrell, C. 'J., Brown, Buford, Chapman an'd Thomas, J. J., concur.
Justice Wi-iitfield not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nila Wilbur, M.D. v. Hightower, 778 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…in, 77 So. 2d 617 (Fla.1955) (judicial discretion means a discretion exercised within limits of applicable principles of law and equity and its exercise must be tested against such principles for abuse); Ray Richardson Inc. v. Carlton, 140 Fla. 229, 191 So. 433 (1939) (discretion abused if contrary to law). Given the legal principles discussed in Murphy for an award of a new trial, we conclude that no reasonable trial judge would grant a new trial based on the record in this case. See Canakaris v. Cana-kar…
-
Biscayne Assocs., Inc. v. Robe B. Carson and Margaret Carson, 104 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…of equity jurisdiction. It is recognized that the granting or withholding of the remedy of specific performance rests largely in the discretion of the chancellor. White v. Cohn, 137 Fla. 501, 188 So. 581; Richardson, Inc., v. Carlton, 140 Fla. 229, 191 So. 433; Howard Cole & Co. v. William, 157 Fla. 851, 27 So. 2d 352. The facts of this case bring it well within the rule of Le Noir v. McDaniel, 80 Fla. 500, 86 So. 435, that the exercise of equity jurisdiction for specific performance depends upon the ques…
-
Am. Bancshares Mortg. Co., Inc. v. Empire Home Loans, Inc., 568 F.2d 1124 (5th Cir. 1978)…deed and paying the contract price. Clements v. Leonard, Fla.1954, 70 So. 2d 840, 843. Granting specific performance rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. White v. Cohn, 137 Fla. 501, 188 So. 581 (1939); Richardson, Inc. v. Carlton, 140 Fla. 229, 191 So. 433 (1939). American at all times was the owner of the construction mortgage, promissory note and related documents. It has not sued the Borrowers on the promissory note nor has it initiated any type of foreclosure proceedings on the under…