Case ID: fla_147/html/0506-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Buford, J. Per Curiam:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Samuel Wolkov and Lena Wolkov, his wife, v. L. W. Pickering Construction Co., a Florida Corporation.
    3 So. (2nd) 350
    Division A
    Opinion Filed June 17, 1941
    Rehearing Denied July 8, 1941
    
      Otto C. Stegemann and David B. Newsom, for Petitioners.
    
      J. O. Phillips and George C. McCaughan and Knight & Green, for Respondents.
   Buford, J.

We have before us application for certiorari to review interlocutory orders in a Chancery cause under our Rule 34.

The original suit was by Bill of Complaint to foreclose an alleged contractor’s lien for the balance due for the construction of a building. Sub-contractors intervened and sought affirmative relief claiming to be entitled to liens as direct contractors with the owner alleging that the plaintiff contractor was the agent of the owner and acted for the owner and not as an independent contractor.

The orders sought to be reviewed are orders settling the pleadings.

The pleadings were settled in accordance with the views and conclusions reached by the learned Chancellor that the contract between the builder and the owner constituted a contract establishing the status of principal and agent and not that of a contract between an independent contractor and owner.

The Chancellor in addition to his judicial orders on the pleadings prepared and caused to be filed with the record a seventeen page opinion giving in detail his reasons for reaching the conclusions reflected in the challenged orders. Quoting the opinion of the Chancellor could serve no useful purpose here. It is sufficient to say that the net result of his conclusion is that on the pleadings and construction of the contract between the parties intervenors lien claimants appear to be entitled to the relief prayed, and that the original plaintiff may or may not be entitled to any relief, his rights being dependent upon what may be shown by the evidence in this regard.

We find no reversible error reflected in the record and, therefore, certiorari is denied.

So ordered.

Brown, C. J., Whitfield and Adams, J. J., concur.

On Petition for Rehearing

Per Curiam:

In petition for rehearing it is contended that our opinion filed herein on June 17, 1941, may be construed to limit the court below to a determination of what, if anything, may be due from the owner to the contractor. Such is not the purport of our opinion.

Whether the contractor or agent is liable to the owner under the terms of the contract or the owner may be liable to the contractor or agent under the terms thereof, is a question upon which we express no opinion. The contract as between the owner and the contractor or agent speaks for itself as to its terms and the court below is free to determine all questions which are, or may be, properly presented and not foreclosed by our opinion and judgment, supra.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Buford, and Adams, J. J., concur.