Haimovitz v. Robb, (1937)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 14
Judges: BUFORD, J.
Attorneys: E.B. Drumright, for Appellants;
Petteway, Brown Petteway and L.W. Petteway, for Appellee.
Filed: Dec. 20, 1937
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: The appeal brings for review the final decree in favor of the complainant in a suit the purpose of which was to compel specific performance of contract to convey certain real estate and to adjudicate compensation for any deficiency in the subject matter of the contract. The appellant has stated what he terms to be five questions to be determined by this Court. The questions as presented in nowise comply with amended Rule 20. The five questions as stated might be restated as one, "Was the evidenc
Summary: The appeal brings for review the final decree in favor of the complainant in a suit the purpose of which was to compel specific performance of contract to convey certain real estate and to adjudicate compensation for any deficiency in the subject matter of the contract. The appellant has stated what he terms to be five questions to be determined by this Court. The questions as presented in nowise comply with amended Rule 20. The five questions as stated might be restated as one, "Was the evidence..
More
I do not think that the optionee performed his part of the contract in such a way as to convert the option into a contract of sale. My thought is that under the contract, it was incumbent on the part of the optionee to have paid, or duly tendered, the amount due up to July 1, 1933, as required by the contract, in order to preserve his option to purchase.
Source: CourtListener
