CHAFFRAIX
v.
SHIFF
Mr. Justice Strong delivered the opinion of the court.
The court below decreed specific performance of a contract for the purchase of real estate, which expressly stipulated that the purchaser should not be bound to accept the sale if the titles were not good and valid. The title offered was that of a purchaser at a confiscation sale, to whom, after the sale, Surget, the person as whose property the land was confiscated, had released, without warranty. We decided, in Wallach et al. v. Van Riswich, supra, p. 202, that such a title is not a complete and valid one; that it is ineffective beyond the life of Surget; and that his release did not enlarge it. Decree reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (108 total)
-
State v. Wershow, 343 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 1977)…egislature to use such vague and broad language that a person of common intelligence must speculate about its meaning and be subjected to arrest and punishment if the guess is wrong. The Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 23 L.Ed. 563 (1876), opined: “It would certainly be dangerous if the Legislature could set a net large enough to catch all possible offenders, and leave it to the courts to step inside and say who could be rightfully detained and who should be set…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Joel N. LEE v. Buchanan, 191 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1966)…violative, when the fee charged by the latter was perhaps considerably in excess of the one charged by the former under a seemingly parallel situation. As apt today as when pronounced is the observation of the court in United States v. Reese, 1876, 92 U.S. 214, 23 L.Ed. 563, “It would certainly be dangerous if the Legislature could set a net large enough to catch all possible offenders and leave it to the courts to step inside and say who could be rightfully detained and who should be set at large. This w…
-
Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Amos, 104 Fla. 609 (Fla. 1932)…Sup. Ct. Rep. 383, 42 L. Ed. 780, Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064, 30 L. Ed. 220; Bank of Columbia vs. Okley 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 235, 244, 4 L. Ed. 559. Its meaning is discussed generally in Kennard vs. Louisiana, 92 U. S. 480, 23 L. Ed. 478; Davidson vs. New Orleans 96 U. S. 97, 24 L. Ed. 616; Ex Parte Wall 107 U. S. 265, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 569, 27 L. Ed. 552; Hagar vs. Reclamation Dist. No. 108, 111 U. S. 701, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 663, 28 L. Ed. 569; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. vs. Humes 115 U. S.…
Previewing 3 of 108 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence