Larnel Builders, Inc. v. United States Concrete Pipe Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Larnel Builders, Inc. v. United States Concrete Pipe Co.

117 So. 2d 438

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 28, 1960

DocketNo. 59-361

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 117 So. 2d 438 (Larnel Builders, Inc. v. United States Concrete Pipe Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Larnel Builders, Inc. v. United States Concrete Pipe Co., 117 So. 2d 438 (Fla. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was defendant in a mechanic’s lien foreclosure suit. It urges that the chancellor erred in several particulars in the application of the law to the findings of fact. We have examined appellant’s contention in each instance and do not find error.

Without discussing each contention, it may be pointed out that we considered the pivotal proposition to be that the chancellor having chosen to believe the testimony that the agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff was a direct promise to pay, the contract cannot be said to be within the purview of the Statute of Frauds, F.S.A. § 725.01. See Foley Lumber Co. v. Koester, Fla.1952, 61 So.2d 634, 639; First Nat. Bank of Tampa v. Southern Lumber & Supply Co., 106 Fla. 821, 145 So. 594, 597.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was defendant in a mechanic’s lien foreclosure suit. It urges that the chancellor erred in several particulars in the application of the law to the findings of fact. We have examined appellant’s contention in each instance and do not find error.

Without discussing each contention, it may be pointed out that we considered the pivotal proposition to be that the chancellor having chosen to believe the testimony that the agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff was a direct promise to pay, the contract cannot be said to be within the purview of the Statute of Frauds, F.S.A. § 725.01. See Foley Lumber Co. v. Koester, Fla.1952, 61 So.2d 634, 639; First Nat. Bank of Tampa v. Southern Lumber & Supply Co., 106 Fla. 821, 145 So. 594, 597.

Affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 So. 2d 438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larnel-builders-inc-v-united-states-concrete-pipe-co-fladistctapp-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack