LATHERS LAND CO., ET AL.,
v.
NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO., 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 two interlocutory orders in a mortgage foreclosure case, upholding the denial of a motion to dismiss and the appointment of a receiver.
No, the trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss because the bill had equity, and the appointment of a receiver was also proper.
“This is an appeal from two interlocutory orders entered in a mortgage foreclosure case wherein the appellant who was defendant below,, contends that the chancellor should have sustained a motion to dismiss tJie [*640] bill and should have denied the appointment of a receiver for the mortgaged apartments.”
Describes the nature of the appeal and the appellant's contentions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, who was the defendant in the lower court, appealed two interlocutory orders in a mortgage foreclosure case. The appellant argued that t…
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 Appointment Of Receiver cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from two interlocutory orders entered in a mortgage foreclosure case wherein the appellant who was defendant below,, contends that the chancellor should have sustained a motion to dismiss tJie *640bill and should have denied the appointment of a receiver for the mortgaged apartments.
The motion to dismiss was properly denied, because there was undeniably equity in the bill as a whole, and a general demurrer to it under the old practice would have been overruled, even in the face of the technical objections urged in •the motion to dismiss.
The order appointing a receiver should be affirmed on the authority of Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. Baumgartner, 99 Fla. 987, 128 Sou. Rep. 241.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J! J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dreka v. Whitehair, 140 Fla. 802 (Fla. 1939)…the bill is not without equity, and the order appealed from must be and is hereby reversed, and the cause remanded for appropriate proceedings. See City of Lakeland v. Ray, 114 Fla. 603, 154 So. 324; Lathers Land Co. v. New York Life Insurance Co., 115 Fla. 639, 155 So. 723; Mather v. Florida National Bank of Jacksonville, 132 Fla. 891, 182 So. 301; Adams v. Sanford Growers’ Credit Corporation, 135 Fla. 513, 186 So. 239. It is so ordered. Terrell, C. J., Whitfield, Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur. Bufo…
Authorities Cited
- Storey Mountain, LLC v. Freestone Enter., LLC (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)
- Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. Baumgartner, 99 Fla. 987 (Fla. 1930)