CARL J. B. CROSS, ET UX.,
v.
ELMER P. HURLBURT
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 foreclosure decree, finding no reversible error in the lower court's decision despite the mortgagor's attempt to satisfy the debt with bonds that were not delivered within the agreed-upon timeframe.
The court held that there was no reversible error in the foreclosure decree. The mortgagor's failure to deliver the bonds as agreed and subsequent default on interest payments justified the foreclosure.
“On the whole it appears that while interest was in default mortgagee agreed to accept certain bonds in a named amount in satisfaction of the mortgage debt if bonds should be delivered within a stated period.”
describes the conditional agreement to satisfy the debt.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe mortgagee agreed to accept certain bonds in satisfaction of a mortgage debt if delivered within a specified period. The mortgagor failed to delive…
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 Consideration For Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal in this case is from final decree in foreclosure suit.
We can see no useful purpose to be served by a discussion of the questions presented.
On the whole it appears that while interest was in default mortgagee agreed to accept certain bonds in a named amount in satisfaction of the mortgage debt if bonds should be delivered within a stated period. No additional consideration moved to the mortgagee as a basis for the agreement. The bonds were not forthcoming within the time named.
After it appeared that the bonds would not be forthcoming the mortgagee, by his attorney, notified the mortgagor that if interest were not promptly paid suit to foreclose would be instituted. The interest was not promptly paid but later another interest payment period arrived and interest again became in default. This default occurred August 10, 1934. Suit was instituted October 2, 1934.
We find no reversible error disclosed by the record.
The decree should be affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in-the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fam. Loan Co. v. Smetal Corp., 123 Fla. 900 (Fla. 1936)…found to have been unlawfully, but in good faith, entered into by defendant below as a result of its belief that corporations, as such, being exempt from the application of the general usury laws (Matlack Properties v. Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank, 120 Fla. 85, 162 Sou. Rep. 148) were likewise not entitled to claim relief against usury charged by a small loan licensee under Chapter 10177, Acts 1925, supra. The decree is modified to accord with the holding of the last above set forth paragraph of this opi…