HOME SEEKERS REALTY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
MARY MOORE BEARDEN, A MARRIED WOMAN, ALSO KNOWN AS MRS. E. M. BEARDEN, SUING BY HER HUSBAND AND NEXT FRIEND, E. M. BEARDEN, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 judgment, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments for reversal.
The court held that the grounds for reversal presented by the appellant were not well-supported.
“It is contended here that the judgment should be reversed because no authority was shown to endorse the cheek sued on that it is not shown that defendant received the money sought to be recovered, that there was a nonjoinder of parties defendant and for other causes.”
This quote outlines the specific arguments made by the appellant for reversing the lower court's judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMary Moore Bearden, as plaintiff, sued Home Seekers Realty Company and obtained a judgment for $1437.50 plus interest and costs. The defendant appeale…
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.
Per Curiam.
Mary Moore Bearden, plaintiff below, brought suit on the common counts against Home Seekers Realty Company and recovered a judgment in the sum of One Thousand Four Hundred Thirty-Seven Dollars Fifty Cents ($1437.50) together with interest and cost.
It is contended here that the judgment should be reversed because no authority was shown to endorse the cheek sued on that it is not shown that defendant received the money sought to be recovered, that there was a nonjoinder of parties defendant and for other causes.
We have examined the records and briefs in this case and do not consider that any of these grounds are well supported. The judgment below is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed. Whitfield, P. J. and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.