Salomon Et Ux. v. Galinsky, (1931)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 12
Judges: BUFORD, C.J. —
Attorneys: Newcomb Barrs, for Appellants;
Harry Katz and John E. Mathews, for Appellee.
Filed: Nov. 04, 1931
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This was a suit to subject certain property to the payment of the costs of improvements made on the property. In the original bill of complaint it is alleged that the property was the property of B. Solomon and his wife, _ Solomon, whose first name was unknown. The bill does not allege that the property was held by husband and wife as an estate by entireties nor can it be conclusively assumed that the allegations of the bill are equivalent to an allegation that the lands were so held. Land may b
Summary: This was a suit to subject certain property to the payment of the costs of improvements made on the property. In the original bill of complaint it is alleged that the property was the property of B. Solomon and his wife, _ Solomon, whose first name was unknown. The bill does not allege that the property was held by husband and wife as an estate by entireties nor can it be conclusively assumed that the allegations of the bill are equivalent to an allegation that the lands were so held. Land may be..
More
I must dissent from the holding that section 4551 C. G. L. applies to a contractor or materialman or laborer dealing directly with the married woman. See my opinion on petition for rehearing in the cited case of Pierson vs. Reinhardt, 136 So. 2d 251. While this opinion was not concurred in by the other members of the court, I am not yet persuaded that the views therein expressed by me are incorrect. Furthermore I have serious doubts as to the power of the legislature to unduly or unreasonably shackle the right to charge a married woman's property, "for labor and material used with her knowledge or assent in the construction of buildings, or repairs or improvements upon her property," given by section 2 of Art. XI of the constitution. If she
already has knowledge or has given her assent, she is already charged with notice, and, as to her, the filing of notice for record would be unnecessary.
Source: CourtListener
