RUBIE C. CONNOR AND C. E. CONNOR, APPELLANT,
v.
THE JOSEPH DIXON CRUCIBLE COMPANY, 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.
Rubie C. Connor and C. E. Connor appealed the trial court's order sustaining a demurrer to their amended bill of complaint seeking specific performance of a real property contract against The Joseph Dixon Crucible Company. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the contract was too indefinite and that Rubie C. Connor lacked standing as she was not a party to the underlying contract.
The court affirmed the sustaining of the demurrer, holding that Rubie C. Connor had no right to specific performance because she was not a party to the contract, and that the contract itself was too indefinite and uncertain to be specifically enforced as it failed to definitely describe the land and indicated the parties contemplated further negotiations.
“In the first instance I cannot discover any right in Ruby C. Connor to have any specific performance. There has not been at any time any contract wherein she was one of the parties.”
Establishes that the plaintiff lacked standing because she was not a party to the contract
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaude E. Connor requested that a deed naming Rubie C. Connor as grantee be sent to a bank, but the proposition for cash payment failed. The contract …
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 Specific Performance cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
In this case demurrer was filed to an amended bill of complaint. The demurrer contained twelve grounds. Upon hearing the court made the following order:
1 ‘ This cause came on to be heard on demurrer to amended bill and was argued by the solicitors for respective parties. As reargument was had on application of defendant’s solicitor because he failed to receive notice of time of first argument, and the court has considered the said demurrer. ’ ’
In the first instance I cannot discover any right in Ruby C. Connor to have any specific performance.
There has not been at any time any contract wherein she was one of the parties. At best, there was a deed sent to the bank at the request of Claude E. Connor, in which she was the grantee, but the proposition for a cash payment failed, and it is immaterial as to what reason caused the failure.
The contract must be definite, clear and certain and land definitely described, or so much so as to be located. The contract herein, “Exhibit A,” made a part of the bill, states a given number of acres in certain sections, townships and ranges, without indicating what portion of the section. It is apparent from this bill and exhibits that both parties contemplated further contracts, for. ‘Exhibit C’ states that ‘the contract for your execution,’ that of Claude E. Connor, is to be signed by him and sent to defendants.
There are other objections raised by the demurrer that seem well taken, but the court does not deem it necessary to discuss.
It is considered and ordered that the demurrer be and same is sustained.- Complainants may have until the rule day in January, 1926, to amend bill. Done and ordered in Chambers at Ocala, Fla., Dec. 12, 1925.”
From this order appeal was taken.
It seems to the Court that there is no error in the said order sustaining demurrer to the Bill of Complaint and that the order sets forth good and sufficient reasons for the basis thereof; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said order sustaining demurrer to the Bill of Complaint of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Brown, C. J., and Ellis and Strum, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holmes La Mar v. Lechlider, 135 Fla. 703 (Fla. 1939)…The lower court correctly concluded that specific perform [*708] anee could not be granted the plaintiffs. Glinski v. Zewadski, 8 Fla. 405; Patrick v. Sears, 19 Fla. 856; Edwards v. Rives, 35 Fla. 89, 17 So. 416; Connor v. Joseph Dixon Crucible Co., 92 Fla. 716, 110 So. 128; Rundel v. Gordon, 92 Fla. 1110, 111 So. 386. In cases brought to enforce the specific performance of contracts, as a general rule, if the plaintiff fails to make out a case for specific performance, he is not entitled to have the case…