LEE C. RICHARDS, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY SAMUEL, APPELLEE
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 appellate court affirmed a judgment for the return of money, holding that even if a subsequent agreement recognizing the debt was invalid, the original indebtedness was admitted and supported by evidence, leading to a just conclusion.
No, the judgment must be affirmed because there was sufficient evidence to support the judgment for the admitted indebtedness, and an appellate court will not reverse a judgment that reached a just conclusion based on the entire record.
“We hold that there is evidence to support the judgment for the admitted indebtedness, and that the judgment must be affirmed regardless of the validity of the subsequent agreement recognizing the debt.”
Establishes the core reasoning for affirming the judgment despite the challenge to the subsequent agreement.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, defendant, was ordered to return money to the appellee. The appellant did not dispute the debt itself but argued that a subsequent agre…
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 Contract Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, defendant, contends that a judgment against him for the return of certain money of the appellee is erroneous. He does not urge that the money is not due the appellee, but maintains that the judgment was based upon an agreement to repay which is invalid under the law of the situs of the contract. See Mississippi Valley Trust Co. v. Begley, 298 Mo. 684, 252 S.W. 76 (1923). But cf., Weisert v. Bramman, 358 Mo. 636, 216 S.W.2d 430 (1948).
We hold that there is evidence to support the judgment for the admitted indebtedness, and that the judgment must be affirmed regardless of the validity of the subsequent agreement recognizing the debt. The judgment is affirmed upon the rule that an appellate court will not reverse a judgment where the record, considered as an entirety, shows that a just conclusion was reached. See Griffin v. Dothan Guano Co., 93 Fla. 1104, 113 So. 563 (1927).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lubarr v. Waldman, 212 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…nsider the evidence in the light of § 55.56, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., then in effect,1 defendant’s evidence was sufficient to support the court’s finding in his favor. State Plant Board v. Smith, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 401; Richards v. Samuel, Fla.App.1966, 184 So. 2d 516. We further hold that appellant’s remaining points are without substantial merit. Central Hardware Co. v. Stampler, Fla.App.1965, 180 So. 2d 205. No harmful error having been made to appear, the judgment appealed is affirmed. Affirmed. . Section…
Authorities Cited
- Moody v. Volusia Cnty., 113 So. 563 (Fla. 1927)
- Griffin v. Dothan Guano Co., 93 Fla. 1104 (Fla. 1927)