Opinion
October 17, 1950. Rehearing Denied November 16, 1950.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County, John Dickenson, J.
Wm. C. McLean, Tampa, for appellant.
Graham Dixon and Roger D. Flynn, Tampa, for appellees.
The Industrial Supply Corporation filed its bill of complaint in the Circuit Court of Pasco County, Florida, against W.E. Lee, W.E. Lee, as Trustee for William Edwards Lee, Jr., a minor, Miriam M. Lee, Miriam L. Quinby, Rosemary Lee Stearns, The Peninsular Company, a corporation, and The Lee Company, Inc. Plaintiff alleged it was a dealer in irrigation supplies and equipment for agricultural and horticultural use, and pipes and valves, fitting and industrial supplies and equipment for citrus packing houses and canning plants. William E. Lee, Jr., Miriam L. Quinby and Rosemary L. Stearns are the children of W.E. Lee, and Miriam M. Lee is the wife of W.E. Lee. The Peninsular Company owns and operates citrus packing houses in Pasco and Hillsborough Counties; The Lee Company, Inc., owned and operated a canning plant and citrus feed plant in Pinellas County.
It is alleged that W.E. Lee owned as Trustee for his minor son, William E. Lee, Jr., described citrus grove property situated in Pasco County. The trust instrument in question is dated January 1, 1946, and was created or established on the part of Miriam Mays Lee and husband W.E. Lee, parties of the first part, and the party of the second part is W.E. Lee, as Trustee for William Edwards Lee, Jr. William Edwards Lee, Jr., is the son of Miriam Mays Lee and W.E. Lee and the grove property described in the instrument is situated in Pasco County and alleged to be very valuable property.
The bill of complaint further alleged that W.E. Lee, in 1944, became a customer of the appellant and during the year purchased supplies and equipment for use on his grove properties in the approximate sum of $1,433.80; in the year 1945 he purchased supplies and equipment of the appellant in the approximate sum of $9,664.26; the amount of supplies and equipment purchased in 1946 total the sum of $9,408.28, and the amount of purchases in 1947 was the sum of $7,159.80. These purchases for the years 1944 through 1947 were made and used by W.E. Lee in the operation of his groves, packing houses and canning plant, and for the four year period approximated $28,666.23. W.E. Lee paid thereon the sum of $19,520.90, leaving as balance due in June, 1947, the sum of $9,145.20. It is alleged that W.E. Lee was insolvent when the bill of complaint was filed in July, 1949, but valuable property now appears of record in the names of different members of his family and family corporations now dominated by W.E. Lee.
The equipment and supplies, supra, bought of the plaintiff-appellant by W.E. Lee were by him used in the construction and installation of systems of irrigation on citrus groves dominated or controlled by him but the legal title thereto of record rested in the name or names of members of his family but receipts for the equipment and supplies so purchased were taken by those in W.E. Lee's employment. The items were charged on the books of the plaintiff-appellant in the name of "The Lee Co." The purchases of equipment and supplies approximated sixty-five separate transactions and were made upon the verbal order of W.E. Lee or through some person in his office authorized to make the said purchases. The appellant delivered the items into the trucks of W.E. Lee calling for them at its place of business.
The bill of complaint further alleged that the owners of the several properties receiving the use and benefit of the equipment and supplies so purchased by the said W.E. Lee are the debtors of the plaintiff-appellant to the extent to which each of their respective properties were benefitted and should be decreed and required to pay the plaintiff therefor. The said purchases were made by W.E. Lee and were used to benefit property in equity owned by him but the legal title thereto now rests in the names of members of his family. Pertinent allegations are viz:
"3. That the defendant, Miriam L. Quinby, a free dealer, is the owner of a bearing citrus grove located in Section 17, Township 33 South, Range 18 East, in Manatee County, Florida, commonly known as the `Kugelman Grove'.
"4. That the defendant, Rosemary Lee Stearns, a free dealer, is the owner of a citrus grove located in Section 33, Township 26 South, Range 19 East, in Pasco County, Florida, lying about four (4) miles East of the town of Denham in said County and State.
"5. That the defendant, The Peninsular Company, owns and/or operates or did own and operate citrus packing houses located near the town of Valrico in Hillsborough County, Florida, and also in or near the town of Dade City, Pasco County, Florida.
"6. That the defendant, Lee Company, Inc. of Tampa, owned and/or operated a citrus canning plant and citrus feed plant in or near the City of Tarpon Springs in Pinellas County, Florida, which on or about August 25, 1947 was destroyed by fire. * * *
"That plaintiff does not know, but has reason to believe, that the outstanding balance of $9,145.33 due for such purchase as aforesaid were used in the production of citrus fruit upon said three groves and in the operation of said packing houses and canning plant in the respective sums following:
For the `Currie Grove' owned by W.E. Lee, as Trustee for William Edwards Lee, Jr., $2,480.18 For the `Kugelman Grove' owned by Miriam L. Quinby, 2,361.55 For the citrus grove near Denham, Florida, owned by Rosemary Lee Stearns, 1,742.40 For the Peninsular Company, 300.24 For the Lee Company, Inc. of Tampa, 2,260.96 _________ Total $9,145.33* * * * * *
"10. That said purchases amounting to the sum of $2,480.18 purchased by the said W.E. Lee for the use and benefit of the `Currie Grove' consisted of irrigation pipe and other irrigation equipment, and plaintiff says that the purchase of said irrigation pipe and equipment for use upon the said `Currie Grove' was properly made by the said W.E. Lee, as Trustee for William Edwards Lee, Jr., in the course of the administration of said trust property. Plaintiff further says that in the purchase of said irrigation pipe and equipment for the use and benefit of said trust estate, the said W.E. Lee as Trustee did thereby charge the trust estate indirectly and because the said Trustee is insolvent said trust estate should be charged in equity to satisfy and pay to plaintiff the purchase price of said irrigation equipment, or plaintiff is entitled to an equitable execution against said trust estate to the extent of said Trustee's right to indemnity or exoneration thereon."11. Plaintiff further says that the aforesaid purchase of $2,361.55 for the use and benefit of the `Kugelman Grove' belonging to the defendant, Miriam L. Quinby, consisted of irrigation pipe and equipment and were purchased for the use and benefit of the owner of said property, the defendant, Miriam L. Quinby, by her father, the said W.E. Lee, who had the `Kugelman Grove' under his control or supervision in the production of crops of citrus fruit thereon.
"12. Plaintiff further says that the aforesaid purchases of $1,742.40 for the use and benefit of the `Denham Grove' belonging to the defendant, Rosemary Lee Stearns, consisted of irrigation pipe and equipment and were purchased for the use and benefit of the owner of said property, the defendant, Rosemary Lee Stearns, by her father, the said W.E. Lee, who had the said `Denham Grove' under his control or supervision in the production of crops of citrus fruit thereon."
The bill alleged that the balance due plaintiff-appellant in the sum of $9,145.33 was for irrigation equipment and supplies sold and delivered or invoiced in the name of one of W.E. Lee's companies, to-wit, "The Lee Company", but the irrigation equipment and supplies were used by W.E. Lee for the improvement and benefit of (1) the orange groves; (2) the packing houses; and (3) the canning plant, which were then and at the present time are under the control, supervision and dominion of W.E. Lee, but the legal title to these properties has been placed of record in the name or names of different members of W.E. Lee's family, or companies or corporations likewise controlled and dominated by W.E. Lee. The active management of the groves and the production of citrus fruit thereon, and other properties, at all times were in W.E. Lee from 1944 through 1947, when the indebtedness herein was contracted.
The plaintiff-appellant charges that under the peculiar circumstances set out in the bill of complaint it is entitled as a matter of law to a discovery on the part of each of the defendants; that each of the defendants should be required by an appropriate court order to disclose the legal description of the property or properties now under the control and dominion of W.E. Lee which received the use and benefit of the irrigation equipment, machinery and supplies sold and delivered by plaintiff-appellant and used by W.E. Lee in the improvement of properties the legal title to which now rests not in W.E. Lee but in the name of different members of his family or in companies or corporations likewise under his dominion and control.
One of the prayers to the bill of complaint is to the effect that the defendants-appellees should be required to answer and set forth which of them received, or the description of, the properties upon which was placed the irrigation equipment, machinery and supplies described in the invoices attached to the bill of complaint; also where each of the properties supra sold by plaintiff-appellant to W.E. Lee are now situated and by whom such item or items are being used. Second, the plaintiff prays that the beneficial owner or receiver of the various items of irrigation equipment, machinery and supplies be required to pay plaintiff therefor by an appropriate equitable decree. Third, that the plaintiff be granted such process as may be necessary to enforce the collection and payment of the several sums which may be found to be due the plaintiff. Fourth, that the lands described in the trust deed be charged and sold to satisfy and pay the costs due plaintiff for irrigation supplies and equipment as were used to benefit or improve the trust property. Fifth, the bill of complaint prays for general relief.
Separate motions to dismiss the bill of complaint were filed by the following defendants and the grounds recited are approximately the same: (1) Rosemary Lee Stearns; (2) Miriam L. Quinby; (3) W.E. Lee, as Trustee for William Edwards Lee, Jr.; (4) Miriam M. Lee; (5) W.E. Lee; (6) The Lee Company, Inc.; and (7) The Peninsular Company. The applicable ground for our consideration is whether or not the bill of complaint contains equity. The Chancellor below entered an order dismissing the bill of complaint and the plaintiff below appealed. Plaintiff-appellant contends here that the bill of complaint contained equity and the Chancellor erroneously dismissed the same.
Out of the factual situation involved in the case of Jones, Trustee v. Carpenter, 90 Fla. 407, 106 So. 127, 43 A.L.R. 1409, we held that an equitable lien existed and was enforceable in a court of equity, even as against homestead property claimed by Carpenter. From the facts presented, it appeared that Carpenter was President of a Bread Company in Jacksonville and had the authority to handle its funds. Carpenter, as President of the corporation, used funds of the Jacksonville Bread Company in (1) buying paint which went on his home in the sum of $166.59; (2) the sum of $205.00 used for labor to paint his home; and (3) the costs of roofing his home in the sum of $170.25. It was admitted that the claims above against Carpenter were not within statutory liens claims.
Our holding in Jones v. Carpenter, supra, has by this Court been reaffirmed on numerous occasions and the principle of equity enunciated therein is so well established that citation of authorities is unnecessary. Bogert on Trusts and Trustees has extended this equitable lien doctrine to trust property, which may or may not be applicable to the trust instrument attached to the bill of complaint, dependent always upon the proof. Volume 1 of Bogert on Trusts and Trustees, page 163-164, par. 32. Subsection (2) of par. 32, supra, states the rule as follows:
"A second class of equitable liens is found in the cases where a debt exists and there is no express or implied agreement for security, but it is equitable that certain specific property should be security for the payment of the debt. In such case chancery will, on the application of the creditor, adjudge that the property in question must stand as security for the debt. Thus, where a contractor has done work and furnished materials for a public improvement, and the town for which the work was done has issued bonds for the purpose of paying for the work and received money from such bonds, equity may well decree that this money or credit in the hands of the town shall be subject to an equitable lien in favor of the contractor. There was no agreement for such lien, but it is a fair and just means of aiding enforcement of the claim. There is here no contract for a lien and no incomplete legal lien turned into an equitable lien.
"This second class of equitable liens is similar to the constructive trust. Both are remedial tools used by chancery to work out a just result. But it is not believed that there is identity between this group of equitable liens and constructive trusts."
It is our view that the bill of complaint contains equity and the order of dismissal challenged on this appeal was erroneous. The order is reversed with directions to enter an order overruling the motions to dismiss and by appropriate order fix the time in which the defendants should be required to answer the bill of complaint.
Reversed.
ADAMS, C.J., and TERRELL, THOMAS and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
SEBRING and HOBSON, JJ., dissent.