COURET

v.

CONNER

Citator

Cited By

• Dill v. Stevens, 144 Fla. 307 (Fla. 1940)
  …d signed by the party to be charged.” The legal effect of said instrument was an acknowledgment of the debt or obligation and took the same out of the statute of limitations. See Woodham v. Hill, 78 Fla. 517, 83 So. 717; Hall v. Brown, 80 Fla. 481, 86 So. 277; Coke v. Phillips, 89 Fla. 283, 103 So. 612; Danielson v. Line, 135 Fla. 585, 185 So. 332. The second question for determination by this Court is, viz.: “Does a claimant who has filed his claim in strict accordance with the law against a solvent e…
• Lakeland Silex Brick Co. v. Jackson & Church Co., 124 Fla. 347 (Fla. 1936)
  …roperly excluded the question of limitations and laches from the consideration of the jury. The letters clearly acknowledge the debt and a repeated desire and intention to pay it, to take the cause out of the statute. See Hall v. Brown, 80 Fla. 481, 86 So. 277. The defendant further contends that the giving of the note extinguished the original contract, and that there was a presumption of novation which the plaintiff failed to rebut. The plaintiff contends that the note was taken as mere evidence of th…
• Wester v. Mitchell Rigdon and his wife, 110 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
  …95.11(1), F.S.A. . F.S. § 95.11(3), F.S.A. . 98 Fla. 792, 124 So. 275, 276. . Syerson v. Kimball, Fla.1949, 40 So. 2d 781. . Dickson v. Humpfer, 111 Fla. 581, 149 So. 574; Vinson v. Palmer, 45 Fla. 630, 34 So. 276. . Hall v. Brown, 80 Fla. 481, 86 So. 277; Vinson v. Palmer, supra note 15.…