JOHN H. BERNS, ANNIE N. GIBBONS, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE WILL OF GEORGE A. GIBBONS, DECEASED, CHARLES W. LATIMER AND VICTOR U. LEONARD, APPELLANTS,
v.
EDWARD J. HARRISON, OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decree that modified a final decree in compliance with a prior mandate. The appellants contended the deficiency decree should have been reduced proportionally, but the court found no merit in this argument.
No, the Chancellor was not bound to reduce the deficiency decree by the same amount as the final decree was reduced. The deficiency decree was for a separate amount and did not require proportional reduction based on the solicitor's fees adjustment.
“Complying with the mandate the Chancellor allowed the pleadings amended and testimony taken and then eliminated the sum of $2,000.00 allowed in the final decree for solicitor’s fees.”
Describes the actions taken by the lower court in compliance with the Supreme Court's mandate.
Previewing 1 of 4 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a prior mandate from the Supreme Court, the Chancellor amended pleadings, took testimony, and eliminated $2,000.00 for solicitor's fees from…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Modification Of Final Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a decree modifying a final decree in compliance with the mandate of the Supreme Court in that regard. Berns et al. vs. Harrison, filed January 17, 1931, reported 131 Sou. 654. Complying with the mandate the Chancellor allowed the pleadings amended and testimony taken and then eliminated the sum of $2,000.00 allowed in the final decree for solicitor’s fees. This left a balance due the complainant, after applying the proceeds of sale under the foreclosure, in the sum of $8,459.10. The Chancellor then re-affirmed the deficiency decree for the sum of $2131.15, of which Order defendants complain, contending that the Chancellor was bound under the terms of the opinion, judgment and mandate of this *163Court, supra, to reduce tlie deficiency decree to the same extent as the final decree was reduced. There is no merit in the contention. The final decree shows that there was more than $6,000.00 due the complainant, which the defendant's were not by the deficiency decree required to pay.
Certainly the defendants show no injustice to have been done them, nor do they show that the Chancellor has exercised the discretion vested in him arbitrarily and unjustly to the detriment of the defendants.
The decree is affirmed.
Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alabama-Florida Co. v. Mays, 111 Fla. 100 (Fla. 1933)…s effectually bound as if it were a contract executed under his own hand and seal. Brownson v. Hannah, 93 Fla. 223, 111 So. 731; Ackley v. Noggle, 97 Fla. 640, 121 So. 882 ; 2 Jones on Mortgages (8th Ed.), Sec. 920; Berns v. Harrison, 100 Fla. 1105, 137 So. 238; Proctor v. Hearne, 100 Fla. 1180, 131 So. 173. But the relation thus created does not in itself involve the mortgagee in its legal effects. H'e may treat both the mortgagor and each successive grantee who assumes the payment of the mortgage debt a…
-
Courtright v. Tunnicliffe, 104 Fla. 720 (Fla. 1932)…red for proving claims they asked for what amounts to a withdrawal of the claim which they filed as a common creditor and sought to substitute therefor a claim showing them to be beneficiaries of a trust fund. (Mallett vs. Tunnicliffe, 102 Fla. 809, 137 So. 238); Bryan vs. Coconut G. Bk. & Tr. Co., 101 Fla. 947, 132 So. 481; Edwards vs. Lewis, 98 Fla. 956, 124 So. 746; 3 R. C. L. 522, 558). It is appellant’s desire to shift their position from that of a general depositor claiming their distributive share i…
-
Blanche W. Mallett v. Tunnicliffe, 107 Fla. 688 (Fla. 1932)…Terrell, J. This is our third consideration of this case. See Mallett vs. Tunnicliffe, et al., 102 Fla. 809, 136 So. 346, [*689] rehearing denied 102 Fla. 820, 137 So. 238. In the former appeal the order of the Chancellor sustaining a general demurrer to the bill of complaint was reversed because it showed equity as to' the claim of preference in favor of Appellant in the sum of $8,150. Immediately after this claim ac…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Berns v. Harrison, 100 Fla. 1105 (Fla. 1930)