Sanley v. the Armton Corp.

Supreme Court of Florida

Sanley v. the Armton Corp.

167 So. 7, 123 Fla. 524, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 1008

DecidedMarch 30, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 167 So. 7 (Sanley v. the Armton Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sanley v. the Armton Corp., 167 So. 7, 123 Fla. 524, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 1008 (Fla. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this suit for specific performance, even if there be a binding contract to convey definitely described land, it appears by the bill of complaint that the defendant has not a clear and unincumbered title to the land, and that complainant demands “a good and sufficient deed of conveyance for the land,” or, as an alternative, that complainant, be decreed a first lien on the land for expenditures made in grubbing and clearing weeds and other debris from the land, though it is not alleged he had been given possession of the-land or permission to clear it, and it is not alleged that complainant paid any consideration whatever for the contract or the land, therefore the decree dismissing the bill of complaint upon motion for lack of equity is affirmed.

*525 Affirmed.

Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell, Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

In this suit for specific performance, even if there be a binding contract to convey definitely described land, it appears by the bill of complaint that the defendant has not a clear and unincumbered title to the land, and that complainant demands “a good and sufficient deed of conveyance for the land,” or, as an alternative, that complainant, be decreed a first lien on the land for expenditures made in grubbing and clearing weeds and other debris from the land, though it is not alleged he had been given possession of the-land or permission to clear it, and it is not alleged that complainant paid any consideration whatever for the contract or the land, therefore the decree dismissing the bill of complaint upon motion for lack of equity is affirmed.

*525 Affirmed.

Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell, Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 So. 7, 123 Fla. 524, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 1008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanley-v-the-armton-corp-fla-1936.