C. J. MCLEOD, ET UX.,
v.
JOSEPH SEIFERT, ET AL.
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, holding that a mortgage satisfaction, executed upon a partial payment and a promise of future payment, is valid and extinguishes the lien, even if the full promised amount is not paid. The court recognized the right to an action at law for breach of the promise.
Yes, the mortgage satisfaction was valid and extinguished the lien. The satisfaction is complete when executed in consideration of a cash payment and a promise for future payment, even if that promise is later breached.
“The Chancellor found in the case that there had been no fraud committed in the transaction and that complainant had lost his lien on the land by reason of his acceptance of a payment of $1,500.00 in consideration of which, together with a promise of a payment of $300.00 more, he had executed and delivered the satisfaction sought to be set aside.”
Describes the lower court's findings regarding the mortgage satisfaction.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceComplainants sought to set aside a mortgage satisfaction due to alleged fraud. They had accepted $1,500 and a promise of an additional $300 in exchang…
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 Breach Of Promise cases and more on FLexlaw
This was a suit in equity to set aside and cancel a mortgage satisfaction price on the ground of fraud in its procurement. The case was heard and decided , by the Chancellor on bill, answer and testimony taken. The Chancellor found in the case that there had been no fraud committed in the transaction and that complainant had lost his lien on the land by reason of his acceptance of a payment of $1,500.00 in consideration of which, together with a promise of a payment of $300.00 more, he had executed and delivered the satisfaction sought to be set aside. The right to an action at law for breach of the promise to pay the additional sum was recognized *342in the decree, which held that the complainant had agreed to satisfy the lien upon one Seifert’s promise to pay the $300.00 and not conditioned upon its payment.
Where a satisfaction of lien is executed and delivered upon payment of a- sum of money, coupled with a promise to pay an additional sum at a later date, and the money is paid, and the satisfaction delivered in consideration of the cash payment and promise, and not expressly conditioned upon performance of the promise, the satisfaction is complete whether the future promise is performed or not, and the lien is lost thereby, although the injured party may have an action at law against the promisor for his breach. Harrington v. Rutherford, 38 Fla. 521, 21 Sou. Rep. 283.
Decree affirmed.
Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Biggs v. Smith, 134 Fla. 569 (Fla. 1938)…e 439; Errett v. Wheeler, 109 Minn. 157, 123 N. W. 4141, 16 L. R. A. (N S.) 816; Fisher v. Levy, 180 La. 195, 156 So. 220, 94 A. L. R. 1297; and note; Garwood v. Elridge, 2 N. J. Eq. 145 ; 41 C. J. par. 997, page 826; McLeod v. Seifert, 112 Fla 341, 150 So. 588. Plaintiff offered in evidence the note and mortgage and the amount of an attorney’s fee, and orders appointing a liquidator and successor liquidator, with evidence as 1o signatures of the mortgagors' apearing on the note and mortgage; likewise, de…