WILLIAM J. SMITH AND LARKIN J. EDWARDS, LATELY PARTNERS AS W. J. SMITH & COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
JORDAN W. HOPE AND GRACE M. HOPE, HIS WIPE, APPELLEES
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.
Smith and Edwards appealed a decree dismissing their bill seeking to enforce an instrument against the Hopes as a contract rather than a mortgage. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the lower court's finding that the instrument was a mortgage securing a debt, and that the appellants' failure to amend their bill to allege the essential facts left the trial court no obligation to rule in their favor.
The court affirmed the decree dismissing the bill, holding that the instrument was a mortgage securing the $200 debt and that the plea adequately set forth the fatal defense to the bill as framed. The complainants' failure to amend their allegations meant the court was not obligated to make out a case for them.
“the instrument sued on, upon its face and read in the light of the allegations of the bill, was not a mortgage, but that further facts were necessary to constitute it such, which facts must be set up by plea or answer”
Establishes that the burden was on the defendant to plead facts essential to converting the instrument into a mortgage.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring his lifetime, J. W. Hope was indebted to W. J. Smith & Company in the sum of $200. Grace M. Hope signed an instrument to secure this indebtedne…
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 Mortgage cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
A statement of the bill and the instrument sued on, on will be found in the opinion rendered at the former hearing of this case, 47 Fla. 295, 35 South. Rep. 865.
The writer concurred with the majority of the court qualified to sit, in holding that the instrument sued on, upon its face and -read in the light of the allegations of the bill, was not a mortgage, but that further facts were necessary to constitute it sue’, which facts must be set up by plea or answer, and we held the Circuit Court in error for ruling otherwise. Other grounds of the demurrer were reserved, as not being argued and as not having been properly considered below. After the cause was remanded the demurrer was not again presented for consideration, nor was there an amendment of the bill either in allegation or prayer, but a plea was interposed by Grace M. Hope setting forth that the late J. W. Hope, her husband, was indebted during his life time to W. J. Smith & Company, in the sum of two hundred dollars and that to secure this indebtedness she .signed the instrument sued upon, which was intended to be and is in fact a mortgage. This plea was set down for argument, was sustained, and issue being joined and testimony taken, the instrument was held to be a mortgage and the bill dismissed.
The final decree in the case being found correct there is no occasion to pass upon the demurrer nor to consider whether it is properly before us for consideration. The complainants persist in planting their relief in direct opposition to the mortgage theory, the court was not called upon to make out a case for them.
The plea may not be a model for those seeking precedents for a form, but it sufficiently sets forth the main defense that is fatal to the bill as framed, that is the indebtedness and the intent of the parties in giviifg an instrument as security therefor, and the evidence, while contradictory in part, on the whole sustains the plea.
The rule excluding parol evidence to contradict a written instrument does not apply, nor can we review the discretion of the court in permitting leading questions; nor were any of the questions and answers so irrelevant as to call for reversal. It would serve no purpose to enter into detailed discussion of the numerous assignments upon the admission of testimony; the above general rules cover them all.
The decree is affirmed.
Shackleford, O. J., and Whitfield, J., concur. Taylor and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Hocker, J., disqualified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hull v. Burr, 58 Fla. 432 (Fla. 1909)…ement of which is optional with the prayer.” It is true that in this last cited case a dissenting opinion was filed by Mr. Chief Justice TAYLOR, in which the writer hereof concurred. This case came a second time before this court. See Smith v. Hope, 51 Fla. 541, 41 South. Rep. 69. The pleadings in the cited case, including the written instrument presented for construction, are so variant from the pleadings and written instrument in the instant case that such cited case throws but little light upon the ques…
-
Cary & Co. v. Hyer, 91 Fla. 322 (Fla. 1926)…ill of sale absolute in itself may be shown by parol proof to have been given as security for a loan of money, and when it is so shown the instrument should be held to be a mortgage. Shad v. Livingston, 31 Fla. 89, 12 South. Rep. 646; Smith v. Hope, 51 Fla. 541; 41 South. Rep. 69; Smith v. Pfluger, 105 Mo. 783; 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 783. The burden of proof, however, where the transaction is in form of a conditional sale, is upon the party asserting it to be a mortgage. Elliott v. Connor, 63 Fla. 408, 58 Sout…
-
Markell v. Hilpert, 140 Fla. 842 (Fla. 1939)…ties, and any evidence, whether written or oral, tending to show this, is admissible The rule of pleading enunciated in Chaires v. Brady was not followed by this Court in the [*855] cases of Shad v. Livingston, 31 Fla. 89, 12 So. 646; Smith v. Hope, 51 Fla. 541, 41 So. 69; Connor v. Connor, 59 Fla. 467, 52 So. 729; Elliott v. Connor, 63 Fla. 408, 58 So. 241; Brown v. Banning, 71 Fla. 208, 71 So. 327. In the case of Howard v. Goodspeed, 101 Fla. 699, 135 So. 294, this Court reaffirmed the language in Ellio…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. Hope, 47 Fla. 295 (Fla. 1904)