MARY AGNES MERKER, ET VIR,
v.
LAKE REGION PACKING ASSOCIATION
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 involves a mortgage foreclosure where the central issue was whether certain fruit sales, represented by a "retain" certificate, were properly credited to the mortgage debt. The court determined that the certificate should have been credited as evidence of fruit sales under the mortgage terms, even though it was struck as an independent counterclaim.
Yes, the "retain" certificate should be credited towards the mortgage balance as evidence of fruit sales that were not properly credited under the mortgage terms. The striking of the certificate as an independent counterclaim does not negate its use as evidence for the mortgage credit.
“The mortgage itself specifically provided for the application of all proceeds of the mortgagor’s fruit sales to the “payment of said note and interest, or any balance due on same, or any renewals thereof.””
Establishes the contractual obligation for crediting fruit sales.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff sued to foreclose a mortgage and sought an accounting. The mortgage required all fruit sales proceeds to be applied to the debt. The def…
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 Application Of Payments cases and more on FLexlaw
This suit was to foreclose a mortgage incident to which an accounting was prayed for and had. An amendment to the bill alleged mutual accounts and debts between the parties and averred that after application of all fruit returns that defendant was withholding from plaintiff the amount of $508.97 that was due on the mortgage.
The mortgage itself specifically provided for the application of all proceeds of the mortgagor’s fruit sales to the “payment of said note and interest, or any balance due on same, or any renewals thereof.”
Whether all fruit sales had been properly credited was necessarily involved in the accounting between the parties *209and it appears that certain fruit sales were entered up as “retains,” as to which the certificate for $223.42 was evidence. Such sales were not credited as required by the mortgage. What the rights of the parties are under the certificate as an independent agreement is not involved or decided in this case. The proof of the retain certificate for other than the evidentiary purpose of proving fruit sales not credited as required by the mortgage,. was eliminated from the case when the Chancellor struck out that part of the answer undertaking to set up the certificate as an independent counter-claim.
But the striking of the certificate as an independent counter-claim did not destroy the procedural right of the mortgagor to use the certificate as evidence of fruit sales that should have been credited on the mortgage debt under the terms of the mortgage itself, absent some showing that the agreed credit had been waived, or the right to it lost, by virtue of the effect of the certificate as an independent contract, conceding that it is competent for that purpose, a point not necessary to be decided.
We adhere to the allowance of the credit for $233.42 but withdraw that part of the opinion directing the allowance of same with interest.
Extraordinary rehearing denied.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.