E. J. BLUME, APPELLANT,
v.
P. M. NEWMAN ET AL., 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.
This case involves an appeal from a decree dismissing a bill to enforce a mortgage lien. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, finding sufficient evidence to support the lower court's findings on the defenses of payment and estoppel.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to support the lower court's findings on payment and estoppel, and any alleged exclusion of evidence was either not definitively made by the court or the excluded evidence was properly objectionable.
“Upon either defense, the evidence, though conflicting, is yet sufficient to prevent interference by us with the finding of the Circuit Court.”
Establishes the court's deference to the lower court's factual findings when supported by sufficient evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant sought to enforce a mortgage lien, which was in the form of a deed but served as security for an indebtedness. The appellees, who purcha…
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 Estoppel Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
J.—This is an appeal from a decree dismissing a bill to enforce a mortgage lien. The mortgage was in form a deed of conveyance, but in fact a security for an indebtedness. The defenses were payment and estoppel in behalf of a' purchaser from the mortgagor, by reason of a statement to him' by the mortgagee prior to the purchase, that the indebtedness had been paid and that the mortgage would be cancelled. Upon either defense, the evidence, though conflicting, is yet sufficient to prevent interference by us with the finding of the Circuit Court.
Error is assigned upon the supposed ruling excluding certain evidence. It does not appear with certainty that the ruling was made by the court, but both parties here proceed upon that hypothesis. It is, however, certain that the evidence was subject to the objections interposed.
To rebut the evidence as to payment, the complainant offered a statement, alleged to have been taken from his books of original entry, in order to prove that a certain note of a third party given him by the mortgagor had never been credited on the account. The books themselves might in this casé have been evidence, but we fail to see how an unauthorized transcript from them could of itself. possess evidential value, or add any weight to the sworn statement of the witness that this note had not been credited on this account.
The decree is affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.