A. F. WALLACE
v.
ALBERT S. BURCHARD
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 in a law case, finding no errors in the proceedings. The court noted that the plaintiff in error might have an equitable remedy to protect against liability exceeding the total debt, referencing a companion case for detailed legal discussion.
No errors were made to appear in the proceedings at law. The court affirmed the judgment.
“All the points of law raised in this case are sufficiently discussed in the opinion filed in the case of Wallace v. Gage, above referred to, so we shall not repeat them here.”
Explains why the court is not providing a detailed analysis in this opinion.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error, A. F. Wallace, sought a writ of error concerning a judgment at law recovered by Albert S. Burchard. The judgment was for $6,50…
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 Mortgage Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is not unlike that of A. F. Wallace v. A. W. Gage, as Trustee, which is here as a companion proceeding on writ of error.
In this case judgment at law was recovered oh certain other of the notes that had been executed by the mortgagor to the trustee, as referred to in the opinion in Wallace v. Gage, supra. The recovery in this case was for $6,500.00 principal, $1,359.23 interest, and $835.23 attorney’s fees.
All the points of law raised in this case are sufficiently discussed in the opinion filed in the case of Wallace v. Gage, above referred to, so we shall not repeat them here. It is sufficient to say that no error has been made to appear in the proceedings at law to which the writ of error in this case was taken, although plaintiff in error may have a remedy in equity to protect himself from liability in the suits at law, in excess of the total $20,000.00 debt, $15,000.00 of which appears to have been realized on the foreclosure of a mortgage securing these same notes, which in addition to a judgment for $2,000.00 obtained and upheld in the companion case that involved two other notes constituting a part of the same series secured by the same mortgage.
Judgment affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Shelfer, 118 Fla. 14 (Fla. 1934)…levy, the time having expired to apply the same to the 1933 assessment roll, City of Palmetto v. Klemm, 108 Fla. 455, 146 Sou. Rep. 558; State, ex rel. Klemm, v. Baskin, 111 Fla. 667, 150 Sou. Rep. 517; State, ex rel. Bush, v. Simpson, 112 Fla. 627, 150 Sou. Rep. 800. Judgment in accordance with foregoing opinion will be entered. Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.…
-
State v. Vickers, 116 Fla. 794 (Fla. 1934)…e made only as an omitted tax for the fiscal year 1932, sufficient to pay the relator’s interest coupons. This must be done by placing same in the 1934 budget and making a present special levy to cover it. State ex rel Bush v. Simpson, 112 Fla. 627, 150 Sou. Rep. 800; State ex rel. Supreme Forest Woodmen Circle v. Snow, 113 Fla. 241, 151 Sou. Rep. 393; State es rel. Gillespie v. County of Bay, 12 Fla. 687, 151 Sou. Rep. 10; State ex rel. Rempsew v. Smith 105 Fla. 368, 141 Sou. Rep. 318. The return filed by the…