MAJOR SCHOFIELD, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
J. H. TALLEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
Schofield repudiated a contract to convey land, and Talley obtained judgment against him. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the written contract satisfied the statute of frauds by adequately describing the property, price, and payment terms, despite Schofield's challenge to its sufficiency.
The contract sufficiently satisfied the statute of frauds. The written agreement adequately identified the property by description, specified the purchase price and payment terms with sufficient clarity, and was signed by the party to be charged (Schofield), thus meeting all statutory requirements.
“No action shall be brought * upon any contract for the sale of lands * unless the agreement or promise upon which such action shall be brought, or some note or memorandum thereof; shall be in writing and' signed by the party to be charged therewith”
Statement of the Florida statute of frauds requirement that Schofield challenged.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSchofield and Talley executed a written contract dated March 2, 1918, regarding the sale of Lot 9, Block 108 A in Miami, Florida. The contract specifi…
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 Statute Of Frauds cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
Talley recovered' a judgment against Schofield for a repudiation of a contract to convey land, and Schofield took writ of error. The contract is as follows: .. . , ,
“Miami, Fla., 3/2/18.
“Received-of J. IT. Talley One Dollar in part payment balance clue on Lot 9, Block 108 A, South, City of Miami, Fla. —(Deeds to Lot 11 Block 7 Ocean Beach Sub. Contract on 2 lots in Beverly Addn. to Miami, Fla. & $999.00 cash). .
Major Schofield.” The main contention is that the quoted contract is insufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds prescribing that “No action shall be brought * upon any contract for the sale of lands * unless the agreement or promise upon which such action shall be brought, or some note or memorandum thereof; shall be in writing and' signed by the party to be charged therewith,” etc. Sec. 2517 Gen. Stats. 1906, Compiled Laws, 1914.
By its terms the contract sufficiently gives the price and-terms and description of the property. .The price is deeds to a described lot of land, a contract on two lots of land in a stated addition to Miami, Florida, and $999-00 cash. The terms of payment are stated to be stated sum in cash, that is present payment in money on demand. The “deeds” and “contract” were likewise to be delivered on demand. This is the manifest import of the terms used'.
In view of the language used in the contract, it is not necessary to resort to parol evidence to ascertain the purchase price or the terms of a payment intended by the agreement. The contract furnishes sufficient means for locating the land; and the identity of the land described may be located in any proper way by the use of the description contained in the contract.
“The rule is that the contract or memorandum .must identify or point out a special tract of land' as within the minds of the parties, and intended to be conveyed. It must so describe the land'as it can be found, or located, or in other words, there must be such a description as can be applied to a particular piece of land as the subject of the contract. A detailed description is not necessary. Where the description shows that a particular tract as distinguished from other lands is meant, then parol evidence can be resorted to to supply the description, or identity, or locate the land, though the description be somewhat general. However precise the description, a resort to parol evidence for such purpose is always necessary to apply it, or ascertain the land described'. This is not adding anything to the terms of the agreement or memorandum, and consequently not a violation of the statute.” Lente v. Clarke, 22 Fla. 515, 1 South. Rep. 149. See also South Florida Citrus Land Co. v. Walden, 59 Fla. 606, 51 South. Rep. 554; Conroy v. Woodcock, 53 Fla. 582, 43 South. Rep. 693, 25 R. C. L. 653.
No material errors appearing in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cohodas v. Russell, 289 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…e manner of payment. In short, one cannot tell whether the parties intended this to be a cash or a credit transaction. The written memorandum relied upon to support an action for breach of a real estate contract in Schofield v. Talley, 79 Fla. 406, 84 So. 193 (1920), acknowledged receipt of “one dollar in part payment balance due” on a 'described lot “and $999.00 cash.” The Supreme Court held this to be a sufficient recitation of the terms of payment as to comply with the Statute of Frauds. On the other…
-
Langlois v. Oriole Land & Dev. Corp., 283 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…memorandum in writing signed by the party to be charged so as to comply with the requirements of the Statute of Frauds. In all material respects, it is identical to the instrument which was held in the case of Schofield v. Talley, 1920, 79 Fla. 406, 84 So. 193, to comply with the requirements of the statute. Compliance with this statute does not require the same degree of certainty as to details of the contract as are required in cases dealing with the equitable relief of specific performance. The defend…
-
Carnes v. Harris, 256 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…rtly in writing and partly in parol, but the written memoranda must disclose all the terms of the sale. . . . ” Accord: Alton Beach Realty Co. v. Henderson, 92 Fla. 689, 110 So. 256, 258 (en banc). The appellee has relied upon Schofield v. Talley, 79 Fla. 406, 84 So. 193, to support his position. The case is distinguishable in that it was an action at law for damages, rather than a suit formerly cognizable in equity for specific performance. The judgment appealed is reversed on the grounds that it lacks…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lente v. Clarke, 22 Fla. 515 (Fla. 1886)
- Conroy v. Woodcock, 53 Fla. 582 (Fla. 1907)
- S. Fla. Citrus Land Co. v. Walden, 59 Fla. 606 (Fla. 1910)