L. MAXCY, INC.,
v.
S. P. JAMES
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.
This case concerns the priority of liens between a real estate mortgage and a subsequent chattel mortgage on fruit crops. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, prioritizing the real estate mortgage over the chattel mortgage on the fruit.
No, the real estate mortgage has priority over the chattel mortgage on the fruit crops.
“On January 1, 1924, a mortgage was executed covering described lands. In 1925 a statute was enacted permitting the giving of chattel mortgages upon fruit crops to be grown upon lands. In July, 1930, a mortgage was executed upon citrus crops growing or to be grown upon lands covered by the above stated mortgage upon described lands.”
Establishes the timeline and nature of the competing mortgages.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA mortgage on land was executed in 1924. In 1925, a statute allowed chattel mortgages on fruit crops. In 1930, a chattel mortgage was executed on citr…
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 Real Estate Mortgage cases and more on FLexlaw
On January 1, 1924, a mortgage was executed covering described lands. In 1925 a statute was enacted permitting the giving of chattel mortgages upon fruit crops to be grown upon lands. In July, 1930, a mortgage was executed upon citrus crops growing or to be grown upon lands covered by the above stated mortgage upon described lands. On June 15, 1933, suit was begun to foreclose the mortgage of 1924 upon the lands, for default which occurred in 1928.
*642The holder of the fruit chattel mortgage by answer-claimed priority as to the growing fruit on the trees on the land over the holder of the mortgage on the real estate. •This answer was stricken and an appeal was taken therefrom. The order appealed from should -be affirmed on the authority of Summerlin v. Orange Shores, Inc., 97 Fla. 996, 122 So. 508.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hughes v. Summit Realty Co., Inc., 120 Fla. 136 (Fla. 1935)…3, 133 So. 630; Bryan, et al., v. Gentile Bros., et al., 106 Fla. 900, 143 Sou. 760; Plant City Agri. Credit Co. v. Pool, et al., 103 Fla. 806, 139 So. 595; Haines City Citrus Growers v. Petteway, 107 Fla. 344, 145 So. 183; L. Maxcy, Inc., v. James, 117 Fla. 641, 158 So. 164. The right to encumber a citrus crop is a very important one. It is very expensive to grow and market. Labor, fertilization, protection from the vicissitudes of seasons, [*141] and the attacks of insects often incur heavy and unforesee…
Authorities Cited
- Summerlin v. Orange Shores, Inc., 97 Fla. 996 (Fla. 1929)