SUSAN A. WENTWORTH PIERCE, A WIDOW,
v.
BRAND PROPERTIES, INC.
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 that the evidence substantially supported the lower court's findings regarding a usurious mortgage transaction. The court found no error in the foreclosure.
Yes, the evidence substantially supports the findings and decree of the Master and the Chancellor. Therefore, the foreclosure decree is affirmed.
“The appeal brings for review a final decree of foreclosure of a mortgage by the assignee of the mortgage and endorse© of the note which it was given to secure.”
This quote establishes the nature of the case being appealed: a foreclosure decree.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSusan A. Wentworth Pierce, a widow, appealed a final decree of foreclosure of a mortgage. The defense argued that the loan was usurious and that the c…
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.
The appeal brings for review a final decree of foreclosure of a mortgage by the assignee of the *470mortgage and endorse© of the note which it was given to secure. The defense was that the loan for which the note and mortgage were given was a usurious transaction- and that the complainant became assignee and endorsee, after maturity, from an assignee and endorsee who was a party to acts which infected the transaction with the infirmity of usury.
No useful purpose can be served by setting forth the his- , tory of the transaction.
The questions presented resolve themselves into the one question, “Does the evidence as disclosed by the record substantially support the findings and decree of the Master and the Chancellor.” The answer must be in the affirmative and the decree must be affirmed. Stanley v. Thompson, 62 Fla. 576, 57 So. 196; Bank v. Tuten, 62 Fla. 423, 57 So. 238; Baxton v. Liddon, 62 Fla. 428, 56 So. 410; People’s Realty Co. v. Southern Colonization Co., 78 Fla. 628, 83 So. 527. Schonfeld v. Engler, 119 Fla. 138, 160 So. 879; Hill v. Padgett, 114 Fla. 519, 153 So. 911; Hilton v. Northern Cent. Trust Co., 114 Fla. 796, 154 So. 328; 308 East 79th Street Corp. v. Favorite, 111 Fla. 234, 149 So. 625; Parrish v. Clark, 107 Fla. 598, 145 So. 848.
So the decree is affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and.Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Powell v. Henry, 224 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…h is self-propelled”. And F.S. § 317.011(57), F.S.A. clearly distinguishes a trailer from a motor vehicle when it refers to a trailer as being a “vehicle * * * designed * * * for being drawn by a motor vehicle”. In Poole v. Travelers Ins. Co., 1937, 130 Fla. 469, 179 So. 138, our Supreme Court adopted the definition of a trailer contained in the “Insurance Manual”, a part of the record of that case, as follows: “A trailer is a vehicle not equipped with automotive power, constructed for attachment to an aut…
-
Nelson v. Pitcher, 131 Fla. 871 (Fla. 1938)…n. We find that the record discloses substantial evidence to support the findings and the decree and we must decline to disturb the same. See Pierce v. Brand Properties, Inc., and authorities there cited. Opinion filed January 5, 1938, and reported 178 Sou. 168. The decree is affirmed. So ordered. Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.…
Authorities Cited
- Parrish v. Clark, 107 Fla. 598 (Fla. 1933)
- The Bank of Jasper v. Tuten, 62 Fla. 423 (Fla. 1911)
- Augustus Hilton and W. D. Bush v. N. Cent. Tr. Co., 114 Fla. 796 (Fla. 1933)
- Peoples Realty Co. v. S. Colonization Co., 78 Fla. 628 (Fla. 1919)
- Baxter v. Liddon, 62 Fla. 428 (Fla. 1911)
- Schonfeld v. Engler, 119 Fla. 138 (Fla. 1935)
- 308 E. 79 St. Corp. v. Favorite, 111 Fla. 234 (Fla. 1933)
- Hill v. Padgett, 114 Fla. 519 (Fla. 1934)
- Will Walker v. State, 114 Fla. 500 (Fla. 1934)
- Stanley v. Sumpter Thompson, 62 Fla. 576 (Fla. 1911)