*1 It is so ordered.
Rеversed remanded. Brown, Terrell J., in the concurs reversal. Davis, J., (dissenting) : of an issue what The defendants themselves made cоmplainant’s attorney’s a fee be allowed reasоnable their motion dismiss solicitors when filed rule out of the September 20, 1928. This takes the case proof must sus- must show and complaint that a bill of attorney’s In fee. tain an for a reasonable allowance by a defendant’s equity issue be made as well an can the whole record on pleading сomplainant’s developed the court renders its I think deсree. the court’s attorney’s independent allowanсe fees of the tender though may be even should affirmed a remittitur quired might of what court think is this excessive as beyond being what the court allowed view of the tender made. Error, Morganthаler, al., Ed
Rose ward J. in Error. Holl, Defendant
En Bane. Opinion May 5, filed 1931. *2 McCardell, Newlin for F. & Chas. Wells and Error; in Appearance,
No for Defendant in Error. brought assignees C.J. This was the Buford, of a contract purchase for the and sale cеrtain real against purchasers estate to recover certain Judgment installments on purchase price. the plaintiff favor of the in the court below. writ of There de-
Thе defendants error. was a took murrer to the declarаtion which was overruled. Then pleas certain were filed. The 2, 3, numbered 7, and 8 were demurred to the and demurrer Plea sustаined. alleged: No. 2 plaintiff
“That the right, has no or title interest in аnd premises the described the declaration and upon, wholly contract declared and is unable to con- vey to these defendants the lands described therein. 3 alleged: Plea No. assignors,
“That nor his to-wit: plaintiff, Charles wife, Eldred, any EL Eldrеd right, and his Edith premises title interest in to the or declaration upon, the contract declared and are wholly cоnvey any to these defendants title property.” to said dеscribed in that the of consideration
Plea No. 7 a failure vendors named the contract had never owned they сonvey; they agreed to that property which n never the time acquired property but at title to contracting parties were under was made those contract prop- Simpson purchase the A. Elva contract with one said their abandoned erty Simpson from but that by contract prоperty and purchase the said contract to relinquishеd to the Simpson agreement with the said Simpson right, said all title in аnd to the and interest *3 property described the .contract and described declaration, original that neither the vendors any right, plaintiffs nor the named the contract lands title or interest given. obligation on was for which sued plea uр the defense. The 8th set same pleas. these Demurrer wаs sustained to referred consti- allegations of the above The demurrers thereto good action and defensе tuted have been overruled. 451, it 538, Sou. Johnson, 54 Fla. 45 In McKinnon vs. was said: good title make a a vendor is
“Where to ob- compel the vendee general he cannot agreed 808 Pomeroy’s Eq. Jur. 6 agreement. jj serve 1407.” Pomeroy’s Eq. Jur. 4 seq; jj et Cyc. 777, 39 Simmons, 129 Sou. also Gable See seq., R.C.L. 517. judgment should stated, the reasons For ordered. and it is so versed Reversed. Davis, Terrell, Brown