Nesbitt v. Bros. of the Order of Hermits of St. Augustine, 619 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Nesbitt v. Bros. of the Order of Hermits of St. Augustine, 619 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for cluster 7694027.
James A. NESBITT, Appellant/Cross-Appellee
v.
The BROTHERS OF The ORDER OF HERMITS OF ST. AUGUSTINE, Appellee/Cross-Appellant
Nos. 92-2283, 92-2079.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 18, 1993.
619 So. 2d 344
Bailey, Hunt, Jones & Busto and Jesse Jones, Miami, for appellant, cross-appellee., Peters, Robertson, Lax, Parsons & Welcher and Steven B. Sundook, Miami, for appellee, cross-appellant.
Cope, Hubbart, Schwartz.
Published
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

We agree with the position of the defendant Order, asserted on cross-appeal, that as a matter of law the plaintiff-appellant Nesbitt is not entitled to recover. Nesbitt sued as the third party beneficiary of a contract in which the Order agreed to pay the college expenses of Nesbitt’s children in return for one O’Malley’s voluntary dismissal of a federal court suit O’Malley was maintaining against the Order. Since it is uncontradicted that O’Malley did not dismiss the suit, the Order had no obligation to pay the expenses claimed. See Binz v. [*345] Helvetia Florida Enterprises, Inc., 156 So.2d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963), cert. denied, 162 So.2d 665 (Fla.1964); Cohen v. Rothman, 127 So.2d 143 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961), cert. discharged, 138 So.2d 328 (Fla.1962). Accordingly the judgment against the Order is reversed with directions to enter judgment in its favor.

Reversed.