*1 Parrish v. 811; R. 245. Also see State, R. Davis v. So. State, term decided at this of Court.
For reversed judgment reasons stated should be and it is so ordered.
Reversed.
Whitfield, J., P. J., Strum, concur.
Terrell, Brown, C. J., Ellis and J. concur J., opinion udgment. Close, Appellee. Walker, Appellant, T. L. v. Harold E. En Banc. 1929.
Opinion filed December rehearing February 10, denied Petition *4 Cosio, Caraballo, Appellant; Graham & for Shackleford, Ivy, Appellee. Shannon, Farmor & for Andrews, Commissioner: court, brought appellant, complainant in the lower against appellee, court,
action defendant in the lower purchase cancel and rescind a contract for property, real purchase money to recover the paid, to cancel *5 general demurrer to the bill amended of complaint. complaint bill of
The amended in substance alleges that 1925, complainant entered into a con- on or about June 15, (10) E, purchase from lot ten Block tract defendant developed being Riverbend Subdivision, subdivision then by defendant, Hillsborough County, located the sum $2,750.00, of paid cash, of which amount was $550.00 being quarterly payable each, balance of $275.00 in sums 15, 1927; falling due June defendant payment last agreed, payment among things, upon pur- other full of the (1) convey price, chase to deliver an abstract and land by warranty free, discharged clear all deed, incum- (2) accomplish, expense complain- without brances, (a) ant : adjoining the installation on the streets said lands lights, electric gas, (b) paving water and or of street laying streets and the curbing sidewalks and on either thereof, (c) side park- the beautification of said streets and ways with shrubbery trees and keeping ornamental with development its of said land. complainant alleges payments had made all that he including payment said lands down to and
due on days 15, 1926, April 1, (a December and about few due), before the next-to-the-last installment fell offered to due, abstract, pay the balance an entire and demanded furnished; appeared which was that certain defects in the title, pointed given out notice of bill, which was April 7, same; with a demand to correct a similar request April 14, 1927; was made that on or October about 17, 1927, having said defects not been up, cleared and the having installed, complainant been improvements ten- purchase money dered the balance of the and demanded the improvements defects be cleared and thirty installed within days thereof, repay from date or that defendant legal with money paid on said interest the contract the amount of alleges $2,200.00. bill per- defendant failed repay money. or said said contract form
1109 only assignment presented error for of to this Court sustaining review is that trial erred in the de- court hill complainant’s murrer of to amended of com- defendant plaint.
A chancery demurrer purpose to a bill in for admits of allegations the demurrer all pleaded. of facts well Rawls City Miami, 65, v. of 82 89 So. R. 351. "Whereunder Fla. allegations of predicate a bill a sufficient complaint, relief, is afforded for if substantial sustained evidence, a demurrer to the whole bill be should overruled. Boone Gay, v. 84 Fla. R. 501. So. being general and directed the whole demurrer to bill, question the immediate before us for consideration any ground equitable
is that if relief stated there bill, general bill have been demurrer should Indemnity overruled. Leavine v. Belt Automobile Associa- tion, Mason, 768; 88 Fla. Mitchell 65 Fla. So. R. v. 208, 61 R. 579. So. assigned grounds are, others, two main among
There why that he contends argued appellant as reasons be sustaining the should lower demurrer order of the court without namely: (a) that defendant not, could reversed, clear and dis- corrections, “free, furnish a title material of such incumbrances,” and that due notice charged of given prior to the date the had been several months defects im- 15, 1927; (b) that the payment was on June last due agreed by purchase provements Article V of the contract expense purchaser” be installed “without had not would with; complied tender defendant was been made in the title of the amount due with demand that defects be improvements installed several months before cleared and January 24, was filed the bill this case defendant, appellee here, hand On the other maintains complainant’s objection merit; the title was without *7 of certain joinder of the wives (1) to the of the as failure Close; E. Harold syndicate trust deed to the members a declaring of laches complainant guilty was (2) that by that stated bringing suit and the time rescission under the of contract was complainant performance for the unreasonable; (3) time demand that at the circumstances account of failure complainant made in default on was was paving tax; (4) covenants pay installments of-the that dependent; improvements independent for were (5) complainant’s improve- of that demand installation mortgage ments and correction of title as to incumbrances rights beneficiaries, and as to inchoate of certain of wives complainant’s were united in demand. question first we shall consider is: Was the title discharged
“free, clear and of incumbrances?’.’ complaint alleges: (1) amended bill of an unsatis- mortgage outstanding an $71,250.00, fied as first mort- gage forty lien acres; partial on the subdivision of about a requested ten; release therefrom was as to said lot (2) outstanding paving against lot, an certificate August 1926, $1381.39; dated the sum of lights, gas, installation electric water and sidewalks and park-ways curbing, and beautification of had not been objectionable accomplished; (3) that the title was because right an of dower wives of the various inchoate acting syndicate was for whom defendant members of the as trustee. every lands, sale of what-
“In valid contract for the language couched, it is there may ever be undertaking convey good title, un- implied is an by the obligation expressly excluded an is less such agreement. of the terms property expressly or real the vender of
“When
market-
convey
good
title or
agrees to'
implication,
discharged only
title,
undertaking able
from
conveyance
and free
of a title unincumbered
any question of law or fact
doubt as to
reasonable
validity.”
v.
necessary
Wheeler
Sulli-
to sustain its
Holmes,
876; Holland v.
van,
90 Fla.
106 So. R.
In the before vendor case by warranty lot deed “free, clear and of in- discharged (3) question cumbrance.” The third raised will be dis- posed of first.
We examined have the bill with the exhibits referred to same, in including the “certificate of trust” with the “Syndicate attached Plan”; also Sections 5665 to 5668 Comp. inclusive Gen. Laws of Florida,—Generally refer- ‘‘ ’ red to as the Statute of Uses ’—and we opinion are of the that title to lands in the in question subdivision vests in defendant, Harold E. trustee, Close as power with sell to convey legal and title. The “certificate of trust” shows that Close was to hold the land “in trust for sub- * ** scribers syndicate accordance with plan hereto attached” and that would he “hold said and title any proceeds and all any from the part sale thereof syndicate trust for the subscribers faithfully to said account them to therefor.” B. Hamner, “affidavit” of L. bill, attached to the
purports the'purpose “quit- recite of certain effect by claim” deeds executed to E. parties Harold Close que quit-claim named as cestui trustent. The deeds have us, not been assuming they but were evidenced stated, executed the manner nothing to, it would add power already nor take from the held Close "the under certificate of trust. power
“A need not be conferred on a trus- sale may express terms, implied or but from tee direct be purposes 1285, of the trust.” R. L.C. Sec. only The “certificate of trust” shows that the bene- ficiary profit in the subscribers to share basis for were 90% and that should have for his services as trustee. Close 10% only Close, appear, made interest of so far as is per profit was that he to have ten cent of the net on the was syndicate, sale of all not members of the lots reserved looking syndicate compensation handling “as for preparation for sale.” after the subdivision and disqualify This of itself would A Close as trustee. compensation reasonable should be allowed to trustees services, responsibility their care and incident to their position. Muscogee Hyer, Co. v. 698; Kay Lbr. 18 Fla. v. Bostwick, 83 Fla. R. 112. 308, So.
In Willey case W. Hoggson v. J. Corporation, 90 Fla. 106 So. R. point wherein the raised aswas parties necessary suit, to the it was shown that trustee, L. Hall, only Fred was not associated in interest joint as owner but held an interest common with the *9 other beneficiaries. in question
The trust here was not one con- granted, veyed consigned, or one but which arose of out the declara- tion of person Close—the holding legal the title to land. “syndicate plan” provides that: hereby
“It is agreed that the property is to be deeded to Harold E. Close and he is to hold it in trust for the pool subscribers of the in accordance with their ’’ interests. It by was deeded to Close L. R. Wood and thereupon Close executed the certificate of trust. Florida, provides 5664, Comp. Laws of
Section Gen. of and confidence of trust all and creations declarations writing, in proved any in be manifested lands shall or by or create law to declare signed by party authorized before record appears it from the trust. far as such So created, as legally case was instant us, the trust to amended bill. in exhibit “C” evidenced aof declaration prescribed form There is no party that the intention of trust; evinces the whatever beneficially shall legal owner he is of which property 19; 12 1182, L. Sec. 26 R. C. sufficient. be another’s is (N. S.) 548. R. A. L. counsel, of
Complainant’s “B” to bill exhibit complaint, deed from L. R. Wood admits “although face Close, to Harold E. absolute on its wife forty-two individuals appears been for the use of to have by syndicate entries on comprising pool a as shown or abstract.” pages 59 to of the only lands,
The widow is dowable Florida “all of tenements died and hereditaments” of her husband conveyed possessed,” “seized or or had before whereof she relinquished right provided had not her dower as 5493, Comp. law. Sec. Laws 1927. The common Gen. statute, except where modified Florida, prevails law legal estate is essen- possessed” of or and to be “seized is not entitled to dower, and a widow right of to the tial only cestui her husband in lands to which rights dower part- property in trust; it is the status as where que 565; Russell, 14 Fla. McMahon v. nerships. v. Hicks, Price L. 19. 69; 9 R. C. Sec. 698; See. 19 C. J. Fla. from the law, dower is excluded the common Under (2nd on Dower 2 Scribner que cestui trust. of the estates ed.), page phase ease is: on this only question presented
1114 Is of wife a cestui que the trust under the common law, prevails which dowable of Florida, lands, title which inis the name of a que trustee for the use of the cestui We do trust? not think so. is a
There, distinction right between an dower, inchoate of during the of the contingent, life husband is and that of equities dower the of que a cestui trust. Scrib- Dower, ner on bill, stated, alleges amended as above that the title (1) defective reasons: that there is an the unsatisfied
mortgage covering property, this from said Harold E. Close securing payment to L. R. Wood totaling of notes $71,250.00; (2) paving that the certificate issued City Tampa of August 31, dated of for the sum $1,381.39 outstanding with interest is an lien. (2) alleged (1) defects will
For these convenience, By together. the terms of the contract be considered here) (appellant noted that vendee was purchase, it will be lot, payable in cash $2,750.00 for the pay $500.00 quarterly payable $275.00 the remainder 15,1925, June falling 15,1927. eight installments the last due June with purchase price,” seller “payment of the whole On convey the lot agrees to deliver an abstract of title ' ed warranty free, discharged of incum de clear and ’’ brances. payment time is made the essence of the contract. In general fact contract as a whole is in the or usual by developers form used subdivisions.
In meaning contract, case of doubt as to the of a written language strongly party is to be taken against most using County it. Aylin, St. Lucie Bank & Trust Co. v. While, construing Fla. R. 438. So. contract, ambiguous language against person is to be construed using given it it, meaning should be in accord with the
1115 R. Beckwith, 60 53 So. 310, Fla. object in Brown view. v. 118, 90 Sinclair, 83 Fla. v. 542; West Yellow Pine Co. So. R. 828. $71,250.00 covering lot this mortgage of unsatisfied partial release was re-
with other which a property, for on quested 7, an “incumbrance” April constitutes April 14, appellant- again pointed out these the title. these discrepancies requested appellee “to correct and defects, period time, if a reasonable of done within transaction,” will this enable Mr. Walker to close any way can to co-operate in that we “We will added, you.” assist free, clear question was not alleges that lot
The bill the such condition incumbrances, and that discharged of months the more than three before to Close pointed was out no release was became due that quarterly payment last it could these circumstances Under procured or offered. guilty of such laches scarcely complainant was be said of further in view the preclude equity, his as suit would executory. clearly purchase the of fact that contract pur- payments the the “whole contends that Appellee ’ ’ by was the last installment made including price chase covenant precedent rather than a condition contract mere_ ‘‘payment expressly concurrent, was independent or ’’ of the contract. of the essence made case long committed This since itself Court 552) principle Cloud, (text 532 Sanford Fla. v. courts, nearly all that: followed always are unless dependent “Covenants considered upon contrary appears. The correct rule intention Supreme. subject is, we announced think, v. Bank of Columbus the United States Court says: ‘In That there Hagner, Court Peters 464. undertakings description, of the this contracts of *12 always un- respective parties, dependent, considered are contrary clearly a A appears. less intention different many cases, in greatest construction lead to the would, injustice, purchaser payment a might and the have money yet upon him, consideration he enforced and disabled procuring property from the for which he paid Although many it. nice distinctions to be are found in upon books question the cov- whether the enants or promises respective parties of the to con- tract are to be independent considered or dependent; yet it is evident the inclination of strongly courts has favored the latter construction, being obviously as just. most The ought seller compelled not to be to part property with receiving his without the consider- ation, purchaser nor part money with his with- an equivalent out return; hence, in cases, such if a or either vendor compel vendee wish to the other contract, to fulfill he part his must make his of the agreement proceed and precedent, against cannot performance other without an agreement actual of the on part, his or a and tender refusal. And an averment always that effect upon made the declaration dependent containing undertakings, contracts and that ’ averment must be supported proof. language is, this upon case that doing vendee acts, certain thereupon vendor will amake etc. deed, The acts were to concur dependent. and were parties Neither here, performance after a full by himself, expected or ’ agreed rely upon remedy against his the other.' Does the allege amended bill show valid tender? alleges, bill The amended and exhibits “B” and “E” substantiate, complainant April 1927, notified writing complainant ready defendant “was ’’; willing pay the balance due on said contract that on notified attorneys, through his 14, 1927, complainant, April title existing in the defects unless the “that defendant period a reasonable within corrected forth were above set as your orator tó left no other recourse would be time, there there money and interest of his return to ask for the but pay last date for 15, 1927, the on”; and that June has not not tender did “defendant arrived, and ment pro a deed as thereto subsequent any at time tendered July filed bill was amended contract.” vided said on Oc complainant, alleged that It is further of- sum to said defendant 17, 1927, “tendered tober Dollars, ($576.50) Seventy-six and Five Hundred 50/100 *13 including there contract, interest said due on the balance clear said defendant per cent, and demanded on at six opinion in the out pointed as in said title the defects in by contract of said comply with the terms title, and gas, beautifying stalling lights, water and electric ’’ thirty days repay amount or to parkways etc., within or not was As to whether this $2,200.00 and interest. recently than ex has more once a valid the Court tender in ease of Martin v. This held pressed Court itself. 415: R. al., 941, 93 Fla. So. Albee, et requirement purchase money “The of a tender of in a contract for the sale of lands does not all cases money strictly a mean a tender of valid at law but ability readiness, willingness good faith present required provided party the other perform the acts things required concurrently do which he is will by the former to the by the do and notice contract to ability per- readiness, willingness and latter of such form.” R. text So. Doane, 39 Fla. v.
See Shouse 807, text 811. required
As as a to whether or not a vendee should be precedent payment, condition and final to make total remedy damages, at law for case defect title to seek following expression in above attention is' called to the case:
“If mutual, sup- the contract for sale of land is ported by consideration, a fair and reasonable all may amply compen- its terms and vendee not be agree- damages sated at breach of law if ment, complainant should not denied relief be part complied agreements he has on his with the performed.” be
25 R. L.C. 244-256. It is defendant, vendor, clear that required was by the present warranty contract to deed and an abstract show- ing a title “free, discharged clear and of incumbrances” concurrent payment with the last made com- be plainant, vendee.
“The rule is now thoroughly ques- settled that the tion of they whether are independent or dependent *14 rests on the intention of parties, the to be determined from the sense of the entire contract rather than from any particular expression, form of or the order in stipulations which the occur in the instrument, the order of time which the intent of the transaction * * * requires performance being controlling. In case of doubt generally covenants will be construed as dependent rather than as independent, since such a ordinarily prevents construction party one from hav- ing the performance benefit of the contract without obligations.” his own 13 C. J. Sec. 539.
1119 time, When two acts are to be done at one and the same party performance, maintain an without neither can action on 13 J. perform, part. or an offer his C. to American the fact that “The later eases hold that payments inde- covenants for intermediate are the parties to pendent will control intent of not complete perform- final on payment make conditional pay vendee covenants to So of land ance. where the vendor cove- by installments, and for the same installment is him a title when the last nants to make pay to the install- of the vendee paid, the covenants covenants', one, independent are ments, except the last install- the last pay to covenant of the vendee but the are to make title vendor covenant ment 571-572; 6 R. C. L. dependent C. J. covenants.” 860, Par. 248. City Holding
In case of Sun the recent Co. v. Schoen- involving (text 254), So. R. 252 feld, Fla. very question this, to Court said: similar dependent, party
“Where covenants are one should pay money in compelled per- not be out his strict covenants, his own when the party formance of other perform part cannot his acts or will material concurrently and which which are to done are not be go merely or subordinate incidental but the entire supports promise of the other consideration purchaser, although com- pay. Otherwise the party purchase price, would not receive pelled pay to- purchase.” he stipulated what improve- Directing attention to the covenant our reads as the contract V of ments, it is noted that Article follows: *15 agrees
“THE it will SELLER covenants and expense in development LAND, without its SAID to the PURCHASER: adjoin-
“(a) the streets Accomplish installation on gas; ing lights, water and SAID LAND of electric street or streets “(b) Accomplish paving of said curbing on each side laying and the of sidewalks and thereof;
“(c) Beautify parkways said streets and with shrubbery keeping trees and ornamental with its development of SAID LAND.” This practically language is the same used in con- the tract City involved in Holding the recent case of Sun Co. v. Schoenfeld, supra. In that case Court used fol- lowing language: agree
“The complainant pay below did not they sums above mentioned for the lots as were when they made, contracts were but as would be when the stipulated improvements accomplished. had been For complainant receive, those sums entitled to unimproved land in the condition which it was when improved the contracts were but lots executed, by the installation streets and sidewalks on the ad- joining streets, lights, electric facilities, water parkways adjoining with said lots beautified with trees shrubbery keeping ornamental with develop- City. ment of complainant Sun That buy, intended to agreed and that sell, defendant lots improved her so is clear from contents of the contract.” In present one, the above case as the deferred payments were over distributed an period extended specific time; being no stipulated time the contract as *16 which improvements begin to when or within should they thereto completed, should be and the sole reference “in its being agreed accomplish that the seller to the same expense pur- development of the without to subdivision obligate “accom- chaser.” This defendant to would plish” improvements time, named within a reasonable all “to “Accomplish” under means circumstances. bring to success; perfect; perform; issue full to an to to fully as, execute accomplish object, promise.” to an or a complainant’s bill It is that contended defendant suit, show, precedent bringing fails condition to to as a paid “specific paving improve- that he has tax bills for amounting Dollars,” ments to Thousand ($1,000.00) One compliance provisions with the II con- Article of said reading tract as follows: agrees covenants and further
“The PURCHASER against pay taxes, charges to and assessments levied all subsequent year 1925, LAND to the and PUR- SAID agrees pay special CHASER further covenants and amounting paving improvements tax bills for Dollars, ($1,000.00) One Thousand & 00/100 lot price said sum has been deducted from sale of said being subject adjustment or lots. This amount when ’’ tax are issued. bills Paving against property assessments are levied itself it, upon subject follow and remain a lien it thereafter, paid by to suit in until the holder of the fee. It was rem, necessary purchaser $1,000.00 pay should requesting before or at the time of a deed, as he had as- agreed pay sumed and that amount and no more. He pay required by city. it in could the manner may any The words “tax bills” mean or several assess- imposed by governmental county ments authority—State, ob- complainant clear, however, municipal. It is or beginning charges and assessments pay all *17 ligated taxes, to taxes; ordinary and evidently 1926, are year which with the improvements” and paving tax” bills “for that'“special “amounting to” by paid complainant agreed were to be ‘‘ from the Dollars, deducted Thousand which sum was One argues, first, under price” of the lot. Defendant that sale “improvement” purchaser pay was to all this contract though it over Thou- even amounted to the One assessments Dollars, complainant sand under the while contends that pay he improvement contract was to for assessments “amounting they to” Dollars, One Thousand and case adjust- payment, final and amount, at time of exceed that pav- purchase price; that the to be on his was made ment $1,381.39, ing which was $381.39 lien alone amounted entitling $1,000.00; complainant of to a excess thus payments credit of the on his last two $381.39 $275.00 ‘ ‘ ” ‘‘ term, amounting each. The to as used means herein, to, by or an rise reach accumulation of or particular sums quantities; aggregate whole; to come to in the as, or the bill dollars,”—Webster’s New International to ten amounts only Dictionary. apparent, expres- not from the It is above contract, purpose the whole that it was the and sion, but liability complainant “paving limit the for intent to improvements” Dollars, Thousand to One and this would “improvements” paving. include other in addition to years in which to install im- had two vendor defendant payment fell due and the con- the last before provements alleged contemplates it. Where it is unquestionably tract months before the last over three given was that notice for payable, the time was of June 15, installment performance on October given for was final notice unreason- the circumstances not be under would 17, 1927, able, complete performance appellant as was entitled to on or June rights in appears complainant
It that the was within his declining payment last seek make the thereafter independent redress suit for make failure to either good “accomplish” title or improvements named. complainant place offers bill his the defendant quo, status appear complainant, it does not if he payment, made final amply protected would in a be damages suit payments the amount of his total $2,200.00, and Up filing interest thereon. to date of bill, appear amended it does complainant had anything money received for his except contract, the bare *18 executory. which is In the case City Holding of Sun Co. Schoenfeld, v. supra, Court, this discussing question the as to whether complainant, purchaser, had a complete rem edy at damages, quoted law for his approvingly from the case of Fisher v. Tatum Holding (D. C.), Co. (2nd) 14 Fed. 656, in Judge which Call said: improvements
“The contracted to be by made the part seller were a of the consideration moving to the buyers making the contract to purchase, and to say purchasers that the should comply first with their contract and make the deferred payments, and then sue the seller at law for is, damages, it me, seems to unreasonable, and very inadequate affords relief to ’’ them. To effect De Bisschop the same see v. Crump, (C. A.)C. (2nd) Fed. R. wherein four months held was to be a “within reasonable time which to make and com- plete” a improvements of similar nature in a involved litigation presented contract there which the identical question here under consideration. right a (1) of
very A distinction between marked by conveyance has been executed after a contract vendee in the right, contract is land, (2) while the of his title defects executory is first case state, litigation the threat of or him the hazard expose which to any him to relief generally entitle litigation, do not an if is under otherwise, is he against It his vendor. a contract will contract; -in such executory the vendee so clouded conveyance of title accept the required be to litigation, or expose the hazard of by him to to defects as to litigation, in order may require him resort A. or defects. outstanding claims from clear his title L. R. sustaining the lower court defendant’s order of re- complaint should be complainant’s bill
demurrer so and it is ordered. versed
Reversed. having Curiam.—The record this been cause
Per Court, opinion foregoing pre- considered and the Chapter 1929, adopted by pared under Acts opinion, considered, as its it ordered and decreed Court sustaining that the order of court below the Court complainant’s complaint bill of defendant’s demurrer *19 be, hereby, and the same reversed. should J., C. Terrell, Whitfield, Ellis, Strum, and Brown, J., concur. J. and Buford, Rehearing
On Petition for .
Andrews, Commissioner: many complainant may allege as as
The a rule different grounds for rescission or cancellation a contract as may he bill is desire and the not demurrable because it ground does not show on intends to and rely, he alleged pre- prove grounds will failure to one of not vent as to the others. relief Eehearing.
On Petition Opinion February filed Commissioner: Andrews, rehearing appears upon motion for a be to based
assumption that the Court failed one of the to consider points namely: appellee’s raised demurrer, That complaint complainant’s bill of in is defective demand for an improvements installation of correction and of title mortgage as to right encumbrances and as inchoate dower of certain beneficiaries, wives of were united in one complainant. demand alleged separately defects title were considered one of opinion, founded; which was not well' grounds appeared good
other against as a demurrer. analyze unnecessary it Therefore, became defendant’s being demand”; as to the demurrer defects “united in one appears pointed sepa- fact, it that the defects were out rately appellee. notice to the demand and
We of no know rule that more than where one fact is upon alleged in grounds relied a bill as for cancella- tion and rescission of a that it .will be fatal on contract, objections demurrer where such to the title are included opposite one demand or party, notice have we any favored been with authorities to effect. The appear authorities examined opposite hold the view. In 3 Black (2nd Ed.), Eescission Cancellation general appears Sec. rule to be as follows: *20 1126 many allege differ- may as complainant
"Thé also con- of the grounds ent rescission or for the cancellation desire, bill not demurrable may is as he and the tract ground he intends it not show on which because does alleged rely, prove grounds of the and failure to one ’’ recovery prevent others. will not R. also, Crowley, 141, Pac. Murphy Cal. See v. 820; Helms, Fields v. Ala. 460. makes up a of actual fraud and the bill case
When sets complainant is prayer for ground relief, that the of the by establishing not, general, decree some entitled grounds quite independent fraud. 9 C. or more J. one alleged in bill. 1249. There no fraud the amended is petition so rehearing for is denied and is ordered. it having Pee Curiam.—The record in this con- cause been by Court, foregoing opinion sidered and prepared 1929, Chapter adopted under Acts Court opinion, as it considered and its ordered the Court rehearing in petition this be, cause should and hereby the same is denied.
Terrell, C. J., Whitfield, Ellis, Strum, Brown J., concur. J. Buford, t J. as Receiver of Palm Beach Bank & Trus Orel Myers, Company, Palm Bank Beach & Trust Company, Corporation, Appellants, Matusek, Ap v. Ernestine pellee. A.
Division filed December Opinion notes certain outstanding against and for a lien property repay: said purchase price. ment The lower court sustained a