Legal Opinion
Spiker v. Hester
Supreme Court of Florida
Decided April 22, 1931PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDavis, J.
In this case the plaintiff in error failed to establish that he offered to comply with the contract on his part to be performed, at the time, if ever, he demanded a deed or at any other time. Default on the part of the defendant-is not shown. The undertakings of the parties were concurrent and dependent, and for plaintiff to put defendant in default, he should have at least offered to comply with the terms of the contract. See Sanford v. Cloud, 17 Fla. 532; Walker v. Close, 98 Fla. 1103, 125 So. 521; Peterson v. Howell, 99 Fla. 179, 126 So. 362; Burke v. Wallace, 98 Fla. 604, 13 C. J. 571.
The…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Walker v. CloseSupreme Court of Florida · 1929
- Sanford v. CloudSupreme Court of Florida · 1880
- Peterson v. HowellSupreme Court of Florida · 1930
- Burke v. WallaceSupreme Court of Florida · 1929
3Cited by5 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Paluska v. WhiteDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1964
- Jones v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.Supreme Court of Florida · 1931
- Seaboard Oil Co. v. ChalkSupreme Court of Florida · 1933
- State Ex Rel. Croker v. ChillingworthSupreme Court of Florida · 1932
- Strong v. City of Winter ParkSupreme Court of Florida · 1934