MRS. EDITH BRADLEY GRIFFING, ET VIR.,
v.
MRS. C. M. GRIFFING, A WIDOW
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 affirmed a lower court decree canceling a purported land sale contract recorded as a cloud on title. The contract was unenforceable because the married woman buyer had no legal capacity to be bound by it, and the resulting lack of mutuality made it unenforceable against either party.
The contract was unenforceable and constituted a mere cloud on title because Mrs. Edith Bradley Griffing, as a married woman, lacked legal capacity to be bound by the agreement. The lack of mutuality rendered the contract unenforceable against either party, and the recorded contract could be canceled.
“The agreement could not be enforced against Mrs. Edith Bradley Griffing and, therefore, could not be enforced against Mrs. C. M. Griffing, becaus'e of the lack of mutuality.”
Establishes the key legal principle that mutual binding capacity is required for contract enforceability.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. C. M. Griffing, a widow and landowner, entered into an agreement with Mrs. Edith Bradley Griffing, a married woman, to sell certain lands in Bake…
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 Lack Of Mutuality cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal in this case is from final decree adjudicating a certain purported contract, which was recorded after execution, to be a cloud on complainant’s title, *914cancelling the contract of record and abating its effect as cloud on complainant’s title.
The purported contract was one between one Mrs. C. M. Griffing, a widow, the owner of the land described therein, and Mrs. Edith Bradley Griffing, a married woman, and in it Mrs. C. M. Griffing purported to agree to1 sell and convey to Mrs. Edith Bradley Griffing certain lands in Baker County, Florida. Mrs. Edith Bradley Griffing agreed to pay $5,000.00 for the land and to pay all outstanding taxes against the land and to pay all costs, attorney’s fees which would be incurred by foreclosure of the mortgage held by Mrs. C. M. Griffing, pledging the land as security.
There was no time named in the agreement within which any part of it should be performed. There is neither allegation nor proof that Mrs. Edith Bradley Griffing performed any part of the agreement. As heretofore said, she was a married woman, and, therefore, was not bound by the agreement.
The agreement could not be enforced against Mrs. Edith Bradley Griffing and, therefore, could not be enforced against Mrs. C. M. Griffing, becaus'e of the lack of mutuality.
The appearance of the contract on the record constituted a mere cloud on the land owner’s title and otherwise was of no' force and effect. The order cancelling the record and removing the same as a cloud on complainant’s title was without error and should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell, Brown and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ulrich v. Reineking, 144 Fla. 284 (Fla. 1940)…perform an executory contract for the purchase of land in a suit for specific performance. The authorities cited are: Fisher v. Parker, 93 Fla. 258, 112 So. 62; Holder v. West Florida Dev. & Ins. Co., 103 Fla. 487, 137 So. 691; Griffing v. Griffing, 120 Fla. 913, 163 So. 141. We fully agree with this contention and the law as enunciated in these cases. The law is settled that a parol agreement to convey land cannot be enforced in equity unless there has been part performance by the purchaser. See Williams v…