MIDWAY LAND AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
VIRGINIA TRUST COMPANY, A CORPORATION, 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 in a mortgage foreclosure suit, finding that the chancellor's decisions regarding a temporary injunction, receiver appointment, mortgage reformation, and timber rights were supported by the facts and within the chancellor's discretion.
No, the chancellor did not err. The decree was amply supported by the facts, and the determinations were largely factual matters within the chancellor's discretion.
“It is urged here that the chancellor erred in granting a temporary injunction and in the appointment of a receiver.”
Identifies the primary issues raised by the appellants on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 4 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involved a suit to foreclose a purchase mortgage. The appellants challenged the chancellor's decisions to grant a temporary injunction, appo…
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
This is a suit to foreclose 'a purchase mortgage. It is urged here that the chancellor erred in granting a temporary injunction and in the appointment of a receiver. It is also urged that the reformation of the mortgage with respect to the release clause was error as was the adjudication of the timber rights' involved as between Midway Land & Development Company and Gotham Realty Company.
*419• AVe have examined the record with reference to each of these assignments and find the decree of the chancellor to be amply supported as to all of them. Their determination was largely a matter of fact peculiarly within the discretion of the chancellor and grounds for equitable' relief have not been brought here by the appellants. In the light of previous decisions affecting the questions presented a discussion of them would serve no useful purpose.
The decree below is, therefore, affirmed.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and AVhitfield, Terrell, Brown .and Buford, J. J.,-concur. •