BOULD ET AL.
v.
COE

Fla. | 1953-01-30
HOBSON, C. J., and TERRELL and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
63 So. 2d 273 Florida Supreme Court (1953) Positive Treatment
Cited by 10 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision to cancel a deed, finding that the deed was never legally delivered by the grantors to the grantee. The court emphasized that a deed only takes effect upon delivery.


Holding

No, the deed was not legally delivered. The court found ample evidence to support the Chancellor's finding that no delivery occurred.


Key Quotes

“A deed takes effect upon delivery and nothing passes until delivery.”

Establishes the legal principle that delivery is essential for a deed to be effective.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The plaintiff, Mrs. Coe, sought to cancel a deed she and her deceased husband had executed to the defendant, Dorothy L. Bould. The Chancellor entered …

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.

Opinion of the Court
BARNS, Justice.

BARNS, Justice.

‘ The Chancellor entered a final decree cancelling a deed from the appellee-plain-tiff to the appellant-defendant, Dorothy L. Bould, whereupon the defendants brought this appeal. In support of the appeal appellants present three assignments of error magnified into nine questions. However, we find that only the one that “Chancellor erred in making and entering the final decree in this cause on June 6th, 1952,” merits consideration and this we find not .to be sustained.

The only determinative question presented is whether the deed involved was delivered by or on behalf of the grantors, who were Mrs. Coe and her deceased husband, to the grantee, Mrs. Bould. The decree of the Chancellor is inconsistent with a finding that a delivery occurred and there is ample evidence to support a 'finding that there was no delivery. A deed takes effect upon delivery and nothing passes until delivery. Houston v. Adams, 85 Fla. 291, 95 So. 859. It is evident that Mrs. Coe intended to retain the deed until her death and that the taking of the possession of the deed by the grantee, although explained, was not justified and that the decree appealed should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

HOBSON, C. J., and TERRELL and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Icie Lee Nowling McCOY v. Love, 382 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1979)
    …oid, there is no conveyance, and a bona fide purchaser from the grantee will not be protected. Delivery is an essential requisite of the execution of a deed conveying valid legal title. Without delivery, nothing passes to the grantee. Bould v. Coe, 63 So. 2d 273 (Fla.1953); Lance v. Smith, 123 Fla. 461, 167 So. 366 (1936); Parken v. Jafford, 48 Fla. 290, 37 So. 567 (1904); Ellis v. Clark, 39 Fla. 714, 23 So. 410 (1897). The rule of Houston v. Adams that a deed procured by fraud is void is limited to situati…
  • Jeffords v. Jeffords, 148 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
    …resolved on final hearing of the cause. The decree appealed is accordingly reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings. CARROLL, DONALD K., C. J., and STURGIS, L, concur. . 10 Fla.Jur. — Deeds—§§ 82, 84; Bould et al. v. Coe (Fla.1953), 63 So. 2d 273. . Baskin et al. v. Griffith et al. (Fla.App.1961) 127 So. 2d 467.…
  • Grossman v. Pollack, 100 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
    …onveying an interest in property and place it in escrow to be delivered only upon the happening of certain contingencies. When the deed is not delivered out of escrow nothing passes. Houston v. Adams, 85 Fla. 291, 95 So. 859; Bould v. Coe, Fla.1953, 63 So. 2d 273. The Chancellor correctly concluded that when it was established that plaintiff’s employer never had a lease, plaintiff could not have a statutory mechanics’ lien. Affirmed. CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON, J., concur.…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw