W. A. FISHER AND WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
E. VILLAMIL AND J. B. JACKSON, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision to reform a deed and mortgage, finding that the amended bill was consistent with prior rulings and the evidence supported the reformation of an innocent mistake in land description.
Yes, the amended bill was properly filed as it aligned with the court's prior ruling and merely narrowed the prayer for relief. Yes, the evidence warranted the finding of an innocent mistake justifying reformation, as two circuit judges reached the same conclusion based on the testimony.
“Upon a former appeal in this case, 62 Fla. 472, 56 South. Rep. 559, we held that it was error to reform a master’s deed, but that it would be permissible to cancel the deed, reform the mortgage and reinforce it by judicial decree; this was done upon an amended bill and the defendants again appeal.”
Establishes the procedural history and the basis for the current appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a prior appeal where the court found error in reforming a master's deed but permitted cancellation, reformation of the mortgage, and reinfor…
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 Reformation Of Mortgage cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
Upon a former appeal in this case, 62 Fla. 472, 56 South. Rep. 559, we held that it was error to reform a master’s deed, but that it would be permissible to cancel the deed, reform the mortgage and reinforce it by judicial decree; this was done upon an amended bill and the defendants again appeal.
The amended bill was properly filed, as being in entire accord with the ruling of this court and being merely a narrowing of the prayer for relief cannot possibly be held to make an entirely new case. In fact it was agreed by the parties that no new evidence be taken, and that the evidence on the original bill stand as to evidence on the amended bill.
As to whether the evidence warranted the finding that the mistake in the description of the lands embraced was an innocent one and such as would justify a reformation in a court of equity, we cannot hold the decree erroneous. Two Circuit Judges, resident in the community, familiar with the character of the witnesses, have found the same way upon the same testimony, and we cannot say on this record they should have done differently.
Decree affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami Beach v. State ex rel. Pickin' Chicken OF Lincoln Rd., Inc., 129 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)…l order from which the appeal was taken. [*698] The requirement that in mandamus, as well as in other actions at law, there must be a final judgment for appeal (Carter v. Warnock, 57 Fla. 49, 49 So. 186; State ex rel. Rhodes v. Goodson, 65 Fla. 475, 62 So. 481; State ex rel. Ware v. City of Miami, Fla.App.1958, 107 So. 2d 385) was met by the entry of the judgment awarding or granting to the relator the peremptory writ of mandamus. See State ex rel. Burr v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 92 Fla. 61, 109 So. 656…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Raymond E. Mott v. Scofield, 120 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)…dismissed. Huie v. Lewis, Fla.1954, 71 So. 2d 498; State ex rel. Collins v. Rogers, 1939, 139 Fla. 557, 190 So. 701; State ex rel. Clifton v. City of Daytona Beach, 1934, 114 Fla. 384, 154 So. 165; State ex rel. Rhodes v. Goodson, 1913, 65 Fla. 475, 62 So. 481; and State ex rel. Lullaby Nursery v. City of Miami, Fla.App.1958, 107 So. 2d 385. For the reason that the order appealed from is interlocutory and not final, we must dismiss the appeal on our own motion. Dismissed. ALLEN, C. J., and SHANNON, J.,…
-
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Giesel, 155 So. 3d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…eformation of the mortgage from occurring in the original foreclosure proceeding once the judgment and resulting certificates are set aside. Indeed, that appears to be precisely what happened in Fisher on remand. See Fisher v. Villamil, 65 Fla. 488, 62 So. 481 (1913) (affirming decree entered on remand cancelling the deed and then reforming and foreclosing the mortgage, and rejecting argument that the “amended bill” filed on remand “ma[d]e an entirely new case”). Here, the bank was not asking the trial c…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fisher v. Villamil, 62 Fla. 472 (Fla. 1911)