JESSIE M. NELSON, BY HER HUSBAND AND NEXT FRIEND, C. A. NELSON, AND HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, H. E. MERRYDAY, AND C. A. NELSON, HER HUSBAND,
v.
JAMES B. PITCHER, JR
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, upholding the lower court's finding that the mortgagor was mentally competent to contract when she executed the mortgage, despite her subsequent marriage and claims of unsound mind.
Yes, the mortgagor was mentally competent to contract at the time of execution, and the notes were given for valuable consideration.
“The mortgagor was a feme sole at the time of the execution of the notes and mortgage securing the same.”
Establishes the status of the mortgagor at the time of the transaction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJessie M. Nelson, a feme sole, executed notes and a mortgage. She later married C. A. Nelson. The defense claimed she was of unsound mind at the time …
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 Valuable Consideration cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal brings for review decree of foreclosure of mortgage.
The mortgagor was a feme sole at the time of the execu*872tion of the notes and mortgage securing the same. She afterwards married C. A. Nelson.
The defense was in effect that the mortgagor was of such unsound mind at the time of the execution of the notes and mortgage as to render her incompetent to contract and be contracted with.
The issue of mental incapacity was presented by the pleadings and voluminous testimony was taken.
The Chancellor found that the mortgagor was mentally competent to contract at the time of the execution and delivery of the notes and mortgage and that the notes were given for a valuable consideration.
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. LEE, 150 Fla. 35 (Fla. 1942)…r or not the allegations of the challenged return or answer are legally sufficient to preclude the issuance of the writ. See State ex rel. Harrington v. City of Pompano, 136 Fla. 730, 188 So. 610; State ex rel. [*41] Carson v. Bateman, 131 Fla. 625, 180 So. 22; Florida Military Academy, Inc., v. State ex rel. Moyer, 127 Fla. 781, 174 So. 3; State ex rel. Enby v. Wood, 140 Fla. 185, 191 So. 769; State ex rel. Campbell v. Sloan, 135 Fla. 179, 184 So. 781; State ex rel Peacock v. Latham, 125 Fla. 69, 169 So.…
-
The State of Fla. ex rel. Virgil D. Hawkins v. Bd. OF Control, 93 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 1957)…as a state [*356] court to decline to issue the extraordinary writ of mandamus if to do so would tend to work a serious public mischief. City of Safety Harbor v. State, 1939, 136 Fla. 636, 187 So. 173, State ex rel. Carson v. Bateman, 131 Fla. 625, 180 So. 22; State ex rel. Gibson v. City of Lakeland, 126 Fla. 342, 171 So. 227; State ex rel. Bottome v. City of St. Petersburg, 126 Fla. 233, 170 So. 730. The relator then filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court to review our 1955…
-
State v. Bd. OF Control, 83 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1955)…or embarrassment in the orderly functioning of the government with regard to its financial affairs, unless so restricted.” City of Safety Harbor v. State, 1939, 136 [*25] Fla. 636, 187 So. 173. See also State ex rel. Carson v. Bateman, 131 Fla. 625, 180 So. 22; State ex rel. Gibson v. City of Lakeland, 126 Fla. 342, 171 So. 227; State ex rel. Bottome v. City of St. Petersburg, 126 Fla. 233, 170 So. 730. It is our opinion that, both under the equitable principles applicable to mandamus proceedings and the…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pierce v. Brand Props., Inc., 130 Fla. 469 (Fla. 1938)