KATHERINE N. DEASON, APPELLANT,
v.
MOSES KREIGER AND INDUSTRIAL SERVICE CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 strike a defendant's answer and refuse an amended answer in a mortgage foreclosure case. The defendant claimed fraudulent inducement and usury, but the court found her allegations insufficient.
The court held that the defendant's answer was insufficient in law and that the court did not err in striking it and refusing to permit an amended answer. The rulings of the lower court were affirmed.
“The court struck the answer as insufficient in law on the facts alleged, and refused to permit an amended answer of like import, to be filed.”
Describes the lower court's action that formed the basis of the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMoses Kreiger filed a bill to foreclose a purchase money mortgage against Katherine N. Deason. The mortgage had been assigned to Kreiger by Industrial…
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 Usury cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a companion case to that of Deason vs. Deitz, recently considered by us. Part of the same transaction is involved in this case, that was considered by us in the ease 'just referred to.
The appellee, Moses Kreiger, filed his bill to foreclose a purchase money mortgage against the appellant, Katherine N. Deason. The mortgage had been assigned to him by the appellee, Industrial Service Corporation. The defendant filed an answer containing a claim for affirmative relief, averring that she had been fraudulently induced to enter into the bargain which had caused her to make a cash payment and execute the notes and mortgage in suit. Upon the basis of the facts set up in her answer, defendant asked affirmative relief by way of rescission of the notes and mortgage and return of her down payment. The court struck the answer as insufficient in law on the facts alleged, and refused to permit an amended answer of like import, to be filed. These rulings constitute the basis for this appeal and they should be affirmed on authority of Stokes vs. Victory Land Co., 99 Fla. 795, 128 Sou. Rep. 408, and similar cases; also Davidson vs. Davis, 59 Fla. 476, 52 Sou. Rep. 139, as to the claim of usury.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.
*487Buford, C.J., and Ellis, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Filed under Rule 21 A.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Lee, 122 Fla. 685 (Fla. 1936)…tfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Brown, J., dissents. * As expressly permitted to be done if agreed to by a two-thirds vote. See Section 17 of Article III, Constitution of Florida. * Freeman v. Simmons, 107 Fla. 438, 145 Sou. Rep. 187; State v. Skaley, 108 Fla. 506, 146 Sou. Rep. 544; State, ex rel. Indian River Mosquito Control Dist., v. Helseth, 104 Fla. 208, 140 Sou. Rep. 655; Volusia County v. State, 98 Fla. 1166, 125 Sou. Rep. 375; Hillsborough County v. Temple Terrace Asset…
-
State v. Uly O. Thompson, 121 Fla. 561 (Fla. 1935)…priate proceedings when called on to determine whether or not the signed legislative bill ever became a law in the constitutionally prescribed manner laid down for the conversion of mere legislative bills into laws. Freeman v. Simmons, 107 Fla. 438, 145 Sou. Rep. 187. So while the Courts have no judicial power to control the judgment or discretion of legislative officials in the preparation or publication of legislative journals, even after the Legislature has finally adjourned,* their duty of judicially [*574]…
-
State v. Simpson, 122 Fla. 670 (Fla. 1936)…report of the Joint Conference Committee was a proposition to substantially and materially amend the bill as originally submitted to the Senate and amended and as' originally adopted by the House with' amendments. See Freeman v. Simms, 107 Fla. 438, 145 South. Rep. 187; State v. Skaley, 108 Fla. 506, 146 South. Rep. 544; State, ex rel. Bd. of Commrs., v. Helseth, 104 [*685] Fla. 208, 140 South. Rep. 655; Volusia County v. State, 98 Fla. 1166, 125 South. Rep. 375; Goff v. Rickerson, 61 Fla. 29, 54 South. Rep. 264.…
Authorities Cited
- Stokes v. Victory Land Co., 99 Fla. 795 (Fla. 1930)
- Davidson v. Davis, 59 Fla. 476 (Fla. 1910)