SAMUEL WOLKOV AND LENA WOLKOV, HIS WIFE,
v.
L. W. PICKERING CONSTRUCTION CO., A FLORIDA CORPORATION
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.
Wolkov sought review of a trial court's interlocutory orders settling pleadings in a mechanic's lien foreclosure dispute. The chancellor determined that the relationship between the contractor and owner was one of principal and agent rather than independent contractor, affecting the rights of intervening sub-contractors to assert liens.
The court affirmed that the contract established a principal-agent relationship, not an independent contractor relationship. On the pleadings and contract construction, the intervening sub-contractors appeared entitled to the relief sought, while the original plaintiff's rights were dependent upon evidence presented at trial.
“The pleadings were settled in accordance with the views and conclusions reached by the learned Chancellor that the contract between the builder and the owner constituted a contract establishing the status of principal and agent and not that of a contract between an independent contractor and owner.”
Establishes the core holding regarding the characterization of the contractual relationship
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWolkov filed suit to foreclose an alleged contractor's lien for unpaid construction work on a building. Sub-contractors intervened in the action, clai…
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 Principal-Agent Relationship cases and more on FLexlaw
We have before us application for certiorari to review interlocutory orders in a Chancery cause under our Rule 34.
The original suit was by Bill of Complaint to foreclose an alleged contractor’s lien for the balance due for the construction of a building. Sub-contractors intervened and sought affirmative relief claiming to be entitled to liens as direct contractors with the owner alleging that the plaintiff contractor was the agent of the owner and acted for the owner and not as an independent contractor.
The orders sought to be reviewed are orders settling the pleadings.
The pleadings were settled in accordance with the views and conclusions reached by the learned Chancellor that the contract between the builder and the owner constituted a contract establishing the status of principal and agent and not that of a contract between an independent contractor and owner.
The Chancellor in addition to his judicial orders on the pleadings prepared and caused to be filed with the record a seventeen page opinion giving in detail his reasons for reaching the conclusions reflected in the challenged orders. Quoting the opinion of the Chancellor could serve no useful purpose here. It is sufficient to say that the net result of his conclusion is that on the pleadings and construction of the contract between the parties intervenors lien claimants appear to be entitled to the relief prayed, and that the original plaintiff may or may not be entitled to any relief, his rights being dependent upon what may be shown by the evidence in this regard.
We find no reversible error reflected in the record and, therefore, certiorari is denied.
*508So ordered.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield and Adams, J. J., concur.
On Petition for Rehearing
In petition for rehearing it is contended that our opinion filed herein on June 17, 1941, may be construed to limit the court below to a determination of what, if anything, may be due from the owner to the contractor. Such is not the purport of our opinion.
Whether the contractor or agent is liable to the owner under the terms of the contract or the owner may be liable to the contractor or agent under the terms thereof, is a question upon which we express no opinion. The contract as between the owner and the contractor or agent speaks for itself as to its terms and the court below is free to determine all questions which are, or may be, properly presented and not foreclosed by our opinion and judgment, supra.
Petition for rehearing denied.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Buford, and Adams, J. J., concur.
On Petition for Rehearing
Per Curiam:
In petition for rehearing it is contended that our opinion filed herein on June 17, 1941, may be construed to limit the court below to a determination of what, if anything, may be due from the owner to the contractor. Such is not the purport of our opinion.
Whether the contractor or agent is liable to the owner under the terms of the contract or the owner may be liable to the contractor or agent under the terms thereof, is a question upon which we express no opinion. The contract as between the owner and the contractor or agent speaks for itself as to its terms and the court below is free to determine all questions which are, or may be, properly presented and not foreclosed by our opinion and judgment, supra.
Petition for rehearing denied.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Buford, and Adams, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wolkov v. L. W. Pickering Constr. Co., 151 Fla. 182 (Fla. 1942)…TERRELL, J.: A statement of the facts of this case will be found in Wolkov, et ux., v. Pickering Construction Company, [*183] 147 Fla. 506, 3 So. (2nd) 350, where it was first considered. Four questions are posed on this appeal. Questions One, Two and Three have to do with the status of certain intervenor’s claims, the liability of an undisclosed principal and his agent and the separa…