DESOTO NATIONAL BANK, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ARCADIA ELECTRIC LIGHT, ICE & TELEPHONE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
DeSoto National Bank appealed an order overruling its plea in a lien enforcement action brought by Arcadia Electric Light, Ice & Telephone Company. The court held that a lien for materials and labor could attach to one partner's undivided interest in property even though the other partner (a married woman) had divested her interest, rejecting the bank's argument that a lien must attach to the whole property or not at all.
The court held that a statutory lien for materials and labor can attach to the limited interest of one partner even though the other partner has divested their interest. The lien attaches to the rem (the property itself) as against subsequent purchasers when proper statutory steps have been taken.
“As a partner he was liable to creditors of the firm for all its debts, the entire debt, not a portion of it, and his title in the firm's realty must be taken to be a fee-simple absolute to the whole though he share his interest with another, and whatever that may be worth it is subject to the lien granted by the statute”
Establishes that a partner's liability for firm debts extends to the entire property interest, making that interest subject to liens even if the partner only holds a partial share
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArcadia Electric Light, Ice & Telephone Company provided materials and labor for improvements to a building owned by the partnership of Simmons, Langf…
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 Partnership Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
This is an appeal from an order overruling a plea interposed by the bank to a bill to enforce a lien for materials and labor upon a building purchased, by it from Simmons, Langford & Company. The bill, alleges service of the statutory notice upon Simmons,. Langford & Company, the then owners of the building,, of the complainant’s intention to hold a lien on the propTerty and the knowledge of the bank of the lieix before-its purchase.
The plea avers that the firm of Simmons, Langford'SiCompany was composed of W. W. Langford and M. P. Simmons, and that said -Simmons was and is a married! woman, who prior to the filing of the bill had parted! with all her interest in the property.
The court held the plea bad upon the theory that while-under the decision of this court in Smith v. Gauby, 43 Fla. 142, 30 South. Rep. 683, Mrs. Simmon’s farmer in terest in the property could not now be reached, yet Langford’s interest might be, and the bank’s contention here is that nothing less than the whole interest can be subjected, and .relies upon a decision by the Supreme Court of Washington, Wright v. Cowie, 5 Wash. 341, 31 Pac. Rep. 878, as supporting the contention. That case holds that the Washington statute does not contemplate a lien upon a portion of a building, a splitting up of the'building. There is no attempt here to subject a portion of the lot or building, but Langford’s undivided interest in the entirety. As a partner he was liable to -creditors of the firm for all its debts, the entire debt, not a portion of it, and his title in the firm’s realty must be taken to be a fee-simple absolute to the whole though he share his interest with another, and whatever that may be worth it is subject to the lien granted by the statute, in obedience to the express command of the constitution, for the improvements placed thereon by his consent and when the proper steps have been taken the lien attaches to the rem as against subsequent purchasers.
Section 2195 of the General Statutes provides expressly that the lien shall be upon the interest of the owner, and if that be less than the absolute interest then upon that limited interest. Neither his personal liability nor his specific property interest will be permited to hide behind a woman’s skirts and claim non-liability by reason of'the shield cast around her. The order is affirmed.
Whitfield, C J., and Shackleford, J., concur;
Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Agin v. Gainesville Planing & Coffin Co., 80 Fla. 679 (Fla. 1920)…ida Compiled Laws, 1914, do not apply to the separate property of married women. See Smith v. Gauby, 43 Fla. 142, 30 South. Rep. 683; Macfarlane v. Southern Lumber & Supply Co., supra; DeSoto Nat. Bank v. Arcadia Electric Light, Ice & Telephone Co., 57 Fla. 391, 48 South. Rep. 745, and same case reported' in 59 Fla. 479, 52 South. Rep. 612. Counsel for appellee admits in his brief that it was never intended to claim a material man’s lien against the property, but that it was intended to get whatever benefi…
-
The DeSoto Nat'l Bank v. The Arcadia Elec. Light, 59 Fla. 479 (Fla. 1910)
-
Langford v. Peyton R. Read, 69 Fla. 198 (Fla. 1915)…al Bank, a corporation, two of the defendants, have entered their appeal and have assigned ten errors. * The construction of this building has been prolific of litigation. See DeSoto National Bank v. Arcadia Electric Light, Ice & Telephone Company, 57 Fla. 391, 48 South. Rep. 745; Ibid., 59 Fla. 479, 52 South. Rep. 612; Langford v. South Florida Lumber & Supply Co. 63 Fla. 484, 59 South. Rep. 12; South Florida Lumber & Supply Co. v. Read, 65 Fla. 61, 61 South. Rep. 125. We find many conflicts in the testi…
Authorities Cited
- Kirby H. Smith v. Rhees D. Gauby and David W. Brown, 43 Fla. 142 (Fla. 1901)