R. T. MITCHELL, APPELLANT,
v.
J. T. HARPER AND J. A. HOLLY, CO-PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS AS SEMINOLE AUTO COMPANY, 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.
A mortgage foreclosure case where the defendant claimed an oral agreement to extend payment time until after the spring tomato harvest. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the foreclosure decree, holding that the alleged extension agreement was unenforceable because it lacked consideration.
The agreement to extend payment was unenforceable because it lacked consideration. A valid extension agreement must be supported by sufficient consideration; a mere agreement for delay without definite time and without consideration is not enforcible.
“A valid agreement of extension has the effect of suspending the right of the owner of the indebtedness to enforce its payment during the period of such extension. But in order to be effectual such agreement must be supported by a sufficient consideration.”
Establishes the legal requirement that extension agreements must have consideration to be enforceable
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR. T. Mitchell borrowed money from J. T. Harper and J. A. Holly, securing the debt with a mortgage on personal property. On January 25, 1918, Mitchell…
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 Enforceability Of Agreements cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
In a suit to foreclose a mortgage upon personal property there was a final decree for complainants and defendant appeals.
The principal defense was that an extension of time had been given for the payment of the indebtedness which the mortgage was given to secure and that the foreclosure suit was therefore prematurely brought.
The paragraph of the answer in which this defense is attempted to be set up is as follows: “That'on or about the 25th day of January, 1918, he came to the office of complainant’s, in the City of Miami, Florida, at their request, to arrange about the notes, and the mortgage, the notes which are set-up in the bill of complaint' as a basis of the cause of action, and that thereupon the complainants, T. J. Harper and J. A. Holly, did promise, and agree with this defendant that they would extend the time of payment of said mortgage indebtedness until after he could plant and harvest his tomato crop for the spring, 1918. Yet this defendant charges that disregarding their promise and agreement in this regard, and without further notice to him, or demand for payment, they instituted this foreclosure suit on, to-wit: the-day of February, 1918, and while the defendant was planting his tomatoes out.’’
The proof of the alleged extension of time for payment of the notes contains no more than the answer. It amounts to nothing except to show that no enforcible agreement for extension of time was made.
A valid agreement of extension has the effect' of suspending the right of the owner ,of the indebtedness to enforce its payment during the period of such extension. But in order to be effectual such agreement must be supported by a sufficient consideration. A mere agreement for delay for no definite time and without consideration is not enforcible. 7 Cyc. 731; 27 Cyc. 1525; Friedenberg v. Robinson, 14 Fla. 130; Davis et al v. Stout, 126 Ind. 12, 25 N. E. Rep. 862; Marshall Field Co. v. Oren Ruffcorn, 117 Ia. 157, 90 N. W. Rep. 618; Howe v. Klein, 89 Me. 376, 36 Atl. Rep. 620; Olmstead v. Latimer et al, 158 N. Y. 313, 53 N. E. Rep. 5.
No' consideration for the alleged extension was either averred or proved and the contention'that the agreement to this effect was binding upon complainants necessarily fails.
Two other assignments of error are argued, but they do not present matters requiring discussion. , No error is made to appear by either of them.
The decree appealed from is affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kreiss Potassium Phosphate Co. v. Knight, 98 Fla. 1004 (Fla. 1929)…ation. 1 Wiltsie on Mortgage Foreclosure, 4th ed. 256; Freund v. Weisman (N. J.), 137 Atl. R. 885, 53 A. L. R. 522 and note, page 526. A mere agreement for delay for no definite time and without consideration is not enforceable. Mitchell v. Harper, 80 Fla. 338, 86 So. R. 246, 247, and authorities therein [*1015] cited. See also Am. Security Co. v. Goldsberry, 69 Fla. 104, 123, 67 So. R. 862. This brings us' to a consideration of the question: Does the answer show a waiver by conduct that will estop the c…
-
Fort Pierce Bank & Tr. Co. v. Abbie E. Sewall, 113 Fla. 811 (Fla. 1934)…he extension is merely a matter of grace or forbearance, for which the holder receives nothing that he would not have been entitled to by mere inaction, the one who is secondarily liable is not discharged. 8 Corpus Juris 434-437; Mitchell v. Harper, 80 Fla. 338, 86 So. 246; Olmstead v. Latimer, et al., 158 N. Y. 313, 53 N. E. 8; Williams v. Peninsular Grocery Co., 73 Fla. 937, 75 So. 517. The answer of the defendant alleged that the extension was granted to the makers, and that the interest was paid. It f…
-
Gabel v. Drewrys Ltd., 68 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1953)…the part of McCaffrey, hence it was of no benefit to him or detriment to Drewrys,- and did not constitute sufficient consideration, and in support cites Strong v. Sheffield, 144 N.Y. 392, 39 N.E. 330. Also cited by appellant were Mitchell v. Harper, 80 Fla. 338, 86 So. 246; Kreiss Potassium Phosphate Co. v. Knight, 98 Fla. 1004, 124 So. 751, regarding consideration to support extension of time for payment. On the other hand, Drewrys says whether the agreement to forbear was for any definite time, or was en…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Perez Fridenberg v. Robinson, 14 Fla. 130 (Fla. 1872)