*1 465 in the execution the testa- charge fraud See Watts v. challenged Newport, supra. trix of the will. County Pinellas Judge simply misapprehended County testimony, error cor- effect all legal We fail find error to the circuit court. appeal rected in the record.
Affirmed. ADAMS, JJ., BUFORD WOY, LA al.
PIERRE JARD WILLIS v. MAUD VAN et (2nd) Term, January 1945 16, 1945 En Banc Rehearing- February denied Milam, & Mcllvaine Milam and E. T. Mcllvaine, appel- lant.
Alley, Dreio, Burns & and R. C. Alley, appel- Middleton lees.
CHAPMAN, C. J.: amended sufficiency a of a second former the appeal against bar sustained as in the case at complaint bill of v.Woy grounds. a on various See motion to dismiss 2nd) down of Willis, going 185. On the Fla. by Willis. an was filed Pierre L. the mandate answer thereto by by made the was taken pleadings on the issues Evidence hearing equities on final the of the parties the and respective below, a final were found to be the and cause and defendant has accordingly, was entered the below decree an here. perfected appeal to
The answer denied the Rockefellers were that $75,000.00, The less for an except sell Casements for than agreement oral between the and the Rockefellers appellant agent, Heydt, latter’s Charles through Sep- made the O. The the the ex- gave tember 1940. defendant agreement The and clusive Casements right purchase of provided notify Rockefellers the would the by willingness September latter’s the cash, and one week thereafter pay a submit statement who people proposed satisfactory in The and such persons school Casements were at Mr. Rockefeller. The was fixed option price and submitted in the strictest of confidence. alleged the time of occurrence answer at defend- answering
the matters the amended bill the alleged option ant owner of the land virtue of an was the an the plaintiff this reason with the Rockefellers interview (below) in an and more favorable effort to obtain reduced (under $75,000.00) been of the have would the Rockefellers legal duty fruitless because the under the to convey to the defendant for option $37,500.00. on his sum of The defendant denied effort Rockefellers; contacting part preventing plaintiff closing she had full of the trans- knowledge date or attorney action Landis’ office DeLand refused at to attend be when title was trans- present declined ferred. decree, re- final out and below, in his set
The chancellor record, and based on the of the salient facts many cited same in the decree' and placed therefrom reached conclusions recitation, thorough disclose a and conclusions of facts language and his controversy of the careful consideration viz: finds: “This Court learning early year
During part sale, Beach Rockefeller home at Ormond a private to use as put to the owners that it proposed letter, dated girls. plan school for Willis submitted Heydt, agent March directed to Mr. C. O. *3 Rockefellers, himself one possess- wherein Willis identified as character. wide in work of that ing experience organization Rocke- “The then price placed upon property $75,000.00 a fee for fellers and it proposed was was organization amounting Willis and for to expense be added to that amount the Rockefellers were price, which and on to contribute The did not materialize plan $7500.00. 11, 1940, Heydt suggested that Willis ‘undertake April sale, account; on his if we will enterprise own he effects a but, desires; him I inti' compensate already as he as have mated, somebody the idea of to a school hiring organize my then sell the the school is property something to does not principal wish to do.’
“Willis find suit- thereupon began efforts to a purchaser to able such a venture and learned during the Summer of 1940 from mutual He acquaintance that plaintiff prospect. was met plaintiff D. on or about Washington, August C. Willis,
1940. Plaintiff was advised to his own according statement, only way property could obtained was through Mr. Rockefeller to sell ‘because didn’t wish in- property directly this school.’ Plaintiff then was $75,000.00. formed that was price 26, 1940, August Heydt:
“On ‘I be able might wrote $25,000.00 cash, to pay Mr. Rockefeller for the property but need days money.’ would approximately thirty to secure the offer, meeting Plaintiff was never told her next of this at Willis in á City, September inquired New York $75,000.00 could be more favorable than obtained. price day such not On that same possible. Willis insisted that ‘Mr. Rockefeller to sell Heydt Willis: wrote ocean, at to the both Or- strip Casements Florida, Beach, $37,500. cash;’ net mond “Willis never did advise of this plaintiff price, reduction insisting and on still that Rockefellers’ September received from one check plaintiff $1,000.00. Undoubtedly, these and one check for $4000.00 understanding checks were Willis with the accepted he Rocke- question was to from the acquire duty fellers for became plaintiff. thereupon Woy deal —not for himself —but for See Van plaintiff. v. Willis, supra.
“On October
Willis received written contract
Rockefellers,
from the
for the sale of the
calling
himself,
$37,500.00.
never
individually
plaintiff was
of,
advised of the terms of
reason
By
that contract.
nevertheless,
premises,
was entitled
its benefits.
See
Phipps Quinn, 93 Fla.
“Defendant argues that the letter dated September 1940, from Heydt, and stating that Rockefeller was $37,500.00, effect, sell the property for gave Willis an ‘option’ thereafter proper it was to deal with the as to make as much profit for himself as was possible.
“The answer to this lies in contention the fact in question letter was not an nor ‘option,’ did it possess of the if a fully characteristics contract. The completed contract, letter was a mere offer of which did not into ripen fully a contract until At the time completed acceptance. acceptance obligated Willis had become to deal for plaintiff. Hence, it follows that at the of being time commissioned behalf, to act Willis had plaintiff completed on her no or con- right summated in the which interest subject to sale.
“Furthermore, undoubtedly realized that Miss Woy understood dealing that she was him as a ‘go- with a between’ in making purchase from the Rockefellers.
must be assumed now he acted to that under- pursuant fact, In Willis made a standing. charge against and collected expenses ordinarily those would have charged by agent been an against his incurred in principal a carrying out commission such as this.” On September Heydt, Mr. agent, Rockefeller’s ad vised Mr. Willis “The Casements” be bought could $37,500.00. Six conditions reference sale were outlined. He $1,000.00 to pay accept offer not later 16, 1940; than September one week after Sep 16,1940, tember a statement of the people behind the scheme submitted; school The Casements should -if the school sponsors were approved, then Willis pay should $4,000.00 additional to be applied on the purchase price; to be transferred on or before November 1940, and the $32,500.00 remaining sum of paid; school the' sponsors were not approved, then the would be re turned deal Cancelled. It is true that Mr.
October sent check for the sum of it but was returned. The offer to sell for the sum never was accepted Mr. terms according letter, but was accepted after receiving Woy’s Miss Van money, and the contention that these negotiations resulted in an option on behalf of Mr. Willis clearly untenable. See Nichols, Frissell 403, 114 94 Fla. So. 431.
The record discloses that Maud Van Woy Mr. Willis paid money certain in the form checks and these checks were *5 by cashed Mr. Willis. After acquiring this he money paid the first cash payment to the or agents Rockefellers their representatives. He advised her that the not be could the he knew $75,000.00. Although from
reduced
school, he with-
as a
used
purchasable
the
Woy’s agent
He
Mrs. Van
this information.
held
him.
of
required
faith was
good
utmost of
and'the
purchase
his principal
to observe toward
of Willis
The failure Mr.
makes
by law
duty
obligation
relationship,-
his
a trustee for
principal.
in this instance
a chancellor on
findings
is well settled that
It
him,
heard
witnesses
the evidence is
facts where
him,
in the
weight
appellate
are entitled to more
before
are
the testi-
in a cause
are made
where
findings
than where
court
chancellor,
case
in either
mony
yet
not taken before the
by an appel-
not be disturbed
findings should
the chancellor’s
clearly erroneous. See Kent v.
unless
to be
late court
shown
Harrison,
Knowles,
315; Farrington v.
101 Fla.
133 So.
Travis,
497; Travis v.
Fla.
compensation reasonable expenses negotiation $30,000.00 loan allowed on “The Casements” should be in addition rendered Miss to the value services his of.
471 of “The Casements.” It is our Woy merit and the value thereof that the contention has conclusion Otherwise the petition be ascertained and allowed. should is denied. rehearing It is ordered. JJ„ BUFORD, concur. BROWN and
THOMAS, J., dissents.
THOMAS, J., dissenting:
I rehearing granted. think the should be SEBRING, JJ., ADAMS COMPANY,
LEE M. GERSTEL WILLIAM CURRY’S Florida SONS Corporation. (2nd) January Term, 802 Special A Division Rehearing February denied