WILL CATO, SYLVIA CATO, LUCIUS CATO, T. C. BRYANT AND J. B. DOUGLAS, APPELLANTS,
v.
G. W. EASTERLIN AND G. B. GODWIN, PARTIES DOING BUSINESS AS G. W. EASTERLIN & COMPANY, APPELLEES

Fla. | 1904-06-01
48 Fla. 249 Florida Supreme Court (1904)

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a foreclosure decree against a mortgagor but reversed it against the claimants and their sureties due to a lack of evidence regarding the value of the claimed property. The court directed further proceedings for the claimants and sureties.


Holding

No, the decree against the claimants and sureties was not valid because there was no evidence presented to establish the value of the property they claimed, which is necessary to support a money decree against them.


Key Quotes

“As to the mortgagor this court finds no reversible error committed, and as to him the decree is affirmed; but as to the claimants and sureties there was not one scintilla of proof of the value of the property claimed, and no evidence to authorize the finding of any money decree, and as to them the decree is reversed, with directions to take such further proceedings as may accord with equity and this opinion.”

This quote establishes the court's dual ruling, affirming the decree against the mortgagor while reversing it against the claimants and sureties due to lack of evidence.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Easterlin & Company filed a bill to foreclose a chattel mortgage against Will Cato. An ancillary attachment was issued, and the seized property was cl…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

Easterlin & Company filed their bill to foreclose a chattel mortgage executed by Will Cato; an ancillary attachment was sued out at the same time, and the property seized thereunder was claimed by Sylvia and Lucius Cato who gave bond with T. C. Bryant and J. B. Douglas as sureties. A final decree was entered adjudging the mortgagor and the claimants and the sureties indebted for the full amount of the balance of the unpaid mortgage. As to the mortgagor this court finds no reversible error committed, and as to him the decree is affirmed; but as to the claimants and sureties there was not one scintilla of proof of the value of the property claimed, and no evidence to authorize the finding of any money decree, and as to them the decree is reversed, with directions to take such further proceedings as may accord with equity and this opinion.

The costs of this appeal will be taxed against the appellees.

All concur, except Carter, J., absent.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw