Hedlund v. Jones

114 So. 2d 220
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 24, 1959·No. No. 59-96·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs appeal from an order dismissing their action to enforce a vendor’s lien upon property owned by the defendants. The complaint sets forth that a corporation, D & H Construction Co. Inc., was the owner of the real property in question, that the corporation sold the property to defendants, and that a part of the consideration was defendants’ promissory note. The note was transferred to the plaintiffs as a part of a division and partition of the property of the corporation. The note was endorsed “without recourse” to the corporation.

The chancellor correctly dismissed the complaint. A vendor’s implied lien is personal to the vendor, and in Florida it is not assignable by him nor does it follow the debt without assignment. Alabama-Florida Co. v. Mays, 111 Fla. 100, 149 So. 61, 91 A.L.R. 139; McKeown v. Collins, 38 Fla. 276, 21 So. 103.

Affirmed.

HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hedlund v. Jones, 114 So. 2d 220 (Fla. Ct. App. 1959).

114 So. 2d 220 (Hedlund v. Jones) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tri-State National Bank v. Saffren
726 P.2d 1081 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1986)