A. W. SPINNEY, ET UX.,
v.
WINTER PARK BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, A CORPORATION
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 mortgage foreclosure decree, holding that the building and loan association substantially complied with governing laws and that the defense of usury was not available, referencing a prior related decision.
The court held that the building and loan association substantially complied with the governing laws and that the defense of usury was not available, consistent with a prior ruling in a related case.
“As to the defense of usury it is enough to say that what we said in Spinney, et ux., v. Winter Park Building & Loan Ass'n, et al., 120 Fla. 453, 162 So. 899, disposes of this case.”
Establishes that the usury defense was already decided in a prior, related case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee, a building and loan association, filed a mortgage foreclosure suit against appellants. The appellants raised defenses of usury and alleged n…
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 Usury Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal'is from a. final decree in a mortgage foreclosure brought by appellee as complainant, against appellants as defendants. There was an answer to the bill of complaint in which the defense of usury was invoked and in which it was alleged that in making the loan complainant did not comply with its by-laws and the statutes governing building and loan associations. The chancellor *319held that the laws governing building and loan associations were substantially complied with and that the defense of usury was not available.
As to the defense of usury it is enough to say that what we said in Spinney, et ux., v. Winter Park Building & Loan Ass’n, et al., 120 Fla. 453, 162 So. 899, disposes of this case.
Being so, it necessarily follows that there was substantial compliance with the law governing building and loan associations. We have made a thorough examination of the record and briefs of counsel on this' point and find the decree of the chancellor well supported.
Our view is that Chapter 10028, Acts of 1925, Section 6167, Compiled General Laws of 1927, is the controlling law rather than Chapter 6971, Acts of 1915, as amended by Chapter 9147, Acts of 1923, as contended by appellant.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Buford, 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
-
MacKay v. Bacon, 155 Fla. 577 (Fla. 1945)…bill was granted and Mrs' MacKay has appealed. She questions the right to file the suit inasmuch as the time for appeal had long since expired and cites among other cases Zewadski v. Barksdale, 86 Fla. 552, 98 So. 590; Quee v. Breed, 122 Fla. 316, 165 So. 56; Dennis v. Ivey, 134 Fla. 181, 183 So. 624. These cases do not control in this case because this bill is more in the nature of a bill to impeach the foreclosure decree for fraud practiced in the procurement- of service of process. See Hall v. Hall,…
Authorities Cited
- Spinney v. Winter Park Bldg. & Loan Ass'n, 120 Fla. 453 (Fla. 1935)