J. J. MCELROY
v.
IDA BELLE GAY, A MINOR
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 reversed a dismissal of a bill of complaint seeking cancellation of a deed and reconveyance of real property. The plaintiff alleged that a minor female induced him to convey an interest in his property by fraudulently promising marriage with no intent to marry, and the court held that equity jurisdiction exists to remedy such fraud despite the defendant's status as a minor who could not be sued for breach of promise of marriage.
The bill of complaint states sufficient grounds for equitable relief. Despite the defendant's minority status preventing a legal action for breach of promise of marriage, equity jurisdiction exists to cancel the deed and require reconveyance of property obtained through fraud. Minors are not entitled to benefit from their own fraud, and equity courts alone can do complete justice by requiring return of property procured by fraudulent means.
“We think that the amended bill of complaint is not wholly without equity. If the allegations of the bill are true the defendant has acquired an interest in plaintiff's real property - without consideration given and by means of deceit and fraud.”
Establishes that the complaint states sufficient grounds for equitable jurisdiction despite the defendant's minority.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff J. J. McElroy deeded an undivided one-half interest in his real property to Ida Belle Gay, a minor unmarried female under seventeen years ol…
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 Cancellation Of Deed cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order dismissing an amended bill of complaint. The object of the suit is to procure the cancellation of a deed and the reconveyance of certain real property owned'by the plaintiff. The primary question on the appeal is whether the amended bill of complaint contains equity. •
The charge made by the bill is that one Ida Belle Gay, an unmarried female under the age of seventeen years, promised to marry the plaintiff, J. J. McElroy, a single man, and that solely in consideration of said promise of marriage and in reliance thereon McElroy deeded to Ida Belle Gay an *857undivided one-half interest in certain real property owned by him. It is averred in the bill that the promise of marriage was fraudulently made by Ida Belle Gay for the purpose of procuring the deed to the property and without intention on the part of the female ever to consummate the marriage. Ida Belle Gay now refuses to marry plaintiff or to deed back the property and plaintiff brings this suit for cancellation and reconveyance.
We think that the amended bill of complaint is not wholly without equity. If the allegations of the bill are true the defendant has acquired an interest in plaintiff’s real property - without consideration given and by means of deceit and fraud. Having failed and refused to marry plaintiff, and having never intended to do so, equity and good conscience reqires that she reconvey the property to plaintiff.
The fact that the defendant is a minor and could not have entered into a valid and binding contract to marry and consequently could not be held legally liable in damages for breach of promise of marriage, will not prevent the bringing of the action. Indeed, this would seem to be all the more reason why the deluded victim of the female’s importunities should have relief in an equity forum, a remedy at law not being available under the circumstances. Infants are no more entitled than adults to gain benefits to themselves by fraud. If the deed was procured by the means alleged the defendant has no right either in morals or law to retain the fruits of her fraud. In such case equity will require a cancellation of the deed and a return of the property. The equity court alone can do complete justice between the parties. Lambert v. Lambert, 66 W. Va. 520, 66 S. E. 689, 19 Ann. Cas. 537; Rockafellow v. Newcomb, 57 Ill. 186; 8 Am. Jur. p. 858-860, Sec. 20; 24 Am. Jur. p. 760, Sec. 56; Anno. 92 A.L.R. 610.
The decree appealed from is reversed with directions that the case proceed in the court below.
It is so ordered.
CHAPMAN, C. J., BROWN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sonny Jack Harrell v. Branson, 344 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…. 5 Fla. Jur. Cancellation, Reformation and Rescission of Instruments section 27. Clearly the deception practiced by Jeanette would have been sufficient ground for cancellation of the deed insofar as her interests were concerned. In McElroy v. Gay, 155 Fla. 856, 22 So. 2d 154 (1945), Ms. Gay promised to marry one McElroy and in consideration of the promise of marriage, McElroy deeded to Gay an undivided one-half interest in certain real property owned by him. Gay then refused to marry McEl-roy or to deed b…
-
Kuketz v. Bibona, 971 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…ns something for himself which in equity and good conscience he should not be permitted to hold.” Saporta v. Saporta, 766 So. 2d 379, 381-82 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (quoting Quinn v. Phipps, 93 Fla. 805, 113 So. 419, 422 (1927)); see also McElroy v. Gay, 155 Fla. 856, 22 So. 2d 154 (1945). However, as conceded by Ms. Bibona, the trial court erred in two respects. [*897] First, there was no basis for the trial court to reserve jurisdiction on the issue of attorney’s fees. Ms. Bibona never requested attorney’s fee…
-
Off the Wall & Gameroom LLC v. Gabbai (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)