SAMUEL WOLKOV AND LENA WOLKOV, HIS WIFE, AND MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY,
v.
L. W. PICKERING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, KEYSTONE ART CORPORATION, MIAMI BEACH ELECTRIC COMPANY, BOHNERT SHEET METAL AND ROOFING COMPANY, PAUL E. SHIPE, NORMAN GRAVES COMPANY, HERMAN HAASE STUDIO, ACME PLASTERING COMPANY, LEVI PLUMBING COMPANY, ARRIGONE ART METAL WORKS, E. J. WARNER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, GRUBB BROTHERS
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 court affirmed its prior decision, finding the relied-upon U.S. Supreme Court case distinguishable and not grounds for reversal.
This case involves a suit to foreclose a building contractor's lien, previously considered by the court. The appeal raises four questions, three of wh…
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 Contract Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
A statement of the facts of this case will be found in Wolkov, et ux., v. Pickering Construction Company, *183147 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 separation of the suit of the intervenors from that of original plaintiff. The Court is of the view that these questions were concluded by the first opinion and for that reason deem it unnecessary to consider them further at this time.
The suit was one to foreclose a building contractor’s lien. The fourth question urges us to reconsider and reverse our former construction of the contract on authority of State of Alabama v. King and Boozer, 314 U.S. 1, 62 Sup. Ct. 43, 86 L. Ed. 1.
The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States with reference to the matter of agency in the latter case is the point relied on. The case however involved an entirely different state of facts from those involved in the case at bar and we cannot see any reason for reversing our former holding on authority of this case. Even if it was in point, it treats a subject on which the decision of this Court is binding on the Federal Courts.
Affirmed.
BROWN, C. J., BUFORD, CHAPMAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
WHITFIELD and ADAMS, JJ., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1941)
- Wolkov v. L. W. Pickering Constr. Co., 147 Fla. 506 (Fla. 1941)