J. K. BEATTY, APPELLANT,
v.
L. C. REGISTER, APPELLEE
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 decree enforcing a chattel mortgage, finding that a minor discrepancy between the stated and actual amount of the note did not prevent enforcement, as substantial justice had been done.
The court held that the chattel mortgage could still be enforced, as the testimony indicated the note was the one intended to be secured and the decree covered only $540.00 as principal, thus substantial justice was achieved.
“Objection to the introduction of the note in evidence before the examiner appointed to take the testimony, was made on the grounds of variance and irrelevancy, but apparently these objections were not called to the attention of the chancellor for a ruling thereon.”
Describes the procedural objection raised regarding the note's admissibility.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA bill of complaint sought to enforce a chattel mortgage securing a note described as being for $545.00. The attached exhibit note was signed by two i…
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 Admissibility Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*148] Whitfield, J.
— In proceedings to enforce the lien of a chattel mortgage, the bill of complaint described the note secured by the mortgage as having been made by J. K. Beaty for $545.00. The copy of the note made an exhibit to the bill is signed by J. K. Beaty and T. W. Beaty, and is for $545.00 in figures and in letters “five hundred forty and 00/100 dollars.” Objection to the introduction of the note in evidence before the examiner appointed to take the testimony, was made on the grounds of variance and irrelevancy, but apparently these objections were not called to the attention of the chancellor for a ruling thereon.
The testimony indicated that the note presented is the one to secure the payment of which the mortgage was given; and it is asserted and not denied that the decree covers only $540.00 as principal. It appears that substantial justice has been done, and the decree is affirmed.
Browne, O. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.