M. O. KING, APPELLANT,
v.
OLA WELLS AND HER HUSBAND, J. W. WELLS, AND W. C. STEVENS, APPELLEES
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.
In this Florida equity case, a real estate broker sought a lien on land for commission allegedly earned when he negotiated a sale between Ola Wells and W.C. Stevens. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision awarding a partial lien, holding that a breach of contract claim for personal services belongs at law, not equity, and dismissed the bill.
The court held that a breach of contract claim for ordinary personal services is fully remediable at law and not appropriate for equitable relief. Since the complaint alleged only a breach of contract for brokerage services with no ground for equitable intervention, the bill must be dismissed.
“There was nothing to prevent the defendants Ola Wells and Husband from making a new contract with the purchaser and selling the lands to him at a lesser sum than that originally agreed upon.”
Establishes that the sellers' conduct in renegotiating was lawful and created no equity issue.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKing negotiated the sale of land whereby Ola Wells and her husband agreed to sell to W.C. Stevens for $7,000 ($500 cash, balance in installments). The…
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 Remedy At Law cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant filed his bill of complaint in the court below alleging: That he negotiated sale of certain land, whereby Ola Wells and husband agreed to sell and W. C. Stevens agreed to buy the said land for a consideration of $7,000.00, payable $500.00 in cash and the remainder at stated intervals ; that accordingly, the agreed cash payment was made and deed from Ola Wells and husband to Stevens was executed and placed in bank in escrow with instructions to deliver to grantee upon final payment; that after deed was placed in escrow, Ola Wells and husband made a new deal with defendant Stevens whereby they conveyed the said land to the said Stevens for a lesser sum than that agreed on in the contract negotiated by complainant; that defendants Ola Wells and husband contracted and agreed to pay complainant $2,250.00 for his services in making sale of said land and only $250.00 has been paid thereon.
The bill prays for a decree establishing a lien in favor of complainant and in default of payment that the lands be sold to satisfy the decree.
Defendants Ola Wells and husband demurred to the bill for want of equity and on the ground that complainant’s remedy was at law. Ola Wells and husband answered the bill, admitting the new contract and sale to defendant Stevens and set up in their answer that the purchaser had breached the contract; that the land was subject to a mortgage which was about to be foreclosed and that it was necessary to make the new deal and sale at a reduced price in. *590order to prevent sacrifice and loss to the vendors and vendee.
Defendant Stevens demurred upon the same grounds and answered the same as Ola Wells and husband.
The demurrers were heard and overruled. Testimony was taken and the court below decreed that complainant was entitled to a lien upon the land in an amount of $250.00 and in default of payment ordered the land sold. From this decree, complainant appealed, and contends the lien decreed should have been for $2,000.00. Defendants assigned as error the order overruling the demurrers and that portion of the decree finding a lien in favor of complainant.
There was nothing to prevent the defendants Ola Wells and Husband from making a new contract with the purchaser and selling the lands to him at a lesser sum than that originally agreed upon.
A breach of contract for ordinary personal services is fully remediable at law. Simms v. Burnette, 55 Fla. 702, 46 So. R. 90, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 389, 127 A. S. R. 201, 15 Ann. Cas. 690; Simms v. Patterson, 55 Fla. 707, 46 So. R. 91.
A bill of complaint which shows no ground for the interposition of a court- of equity will be ordered dismissed. Hendry v. Whidden, 48 Fla. 268, 37 So. R. 571.
The final decree is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to dismiss the bill.
— The record in this cause having been considered by the Court, and the foregoing opinion prepared under Chapter 14553, Acts of 1929, adopted by the Court as its opinion, it is considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the decree of the court below should be, and the same is hereby, reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to dismiss the bill.
Terrell, C. J., and Whiteield, Strum and Brown, J. J., concur.
Bueord, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moss v. Sperry, 140 Fla. 301 (Fla. 1939)…lant in his contention that he has, or is entitled to have the Court declare in his favor, an equitable lien in the nature of a vendor’s lien, on the land, to the extent of his unpaid commision. Such relief was denied in King v. Wells, 100 Fla. 588, 130 So. 38. It was said in that case that: “A breach of contract for ordinary personal services is fully remediable at law.” And in Levitt v. Axelson, 102 Fla. 233, 135 So. 553, we held that a court of chancery cannot enter a personal decree for the payment o…
-
Jansik v. Studstill & Hollenbeck, Inc., 153 Fla. 870 (Fla. 1944)…cognized the limitation of a court of equity in cases of. this character by calling attention to a prior decision of this Court holding that equity had no jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim for personal services. King v. Wells, et al., 100 Fla. 588, 130 So. 38. The case here is different in that the claim as alleged is not contingent. It follows that the decree is reversed with direction to the lower court to enter an order transferring the cause to law side of the court and for further proceedings in acc…
-
Buck Plumbing, Inc. v. Bel-Aire, Inc., 102 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…[*399] PER CURIAM. Affirmed upon authority of the principle expressed in King v. Wells, 100 Fla. 588, 130 So. 38; Poinsettia Dairy Products v. Wessel Co., 123 Fla. 120, 166 So. 306, 104 A.L.R. 216. CARROLL, CHAS.j C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.…
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
- Simms v. Burnette, 55 Fla. 702 (Fla. 1908)
- Hendry v. Whidden, 48 Fla. 268 (Fla. 1904)
- Simms v. Patterson, 55 Fla. 707 (Fla. 1908)