CHARLES W. BRAY, ET UX.,
v.
W. F. DUGGAN
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 sufficient evidence to support the lower court's decision that the plaintiff was the rightful owner of the notes and mortgage.
Yes, the court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the plaintiff's ownership of the notes and mortgage and to maintain the foreclosure action.
“We have reviewed the evidence upon which the final decree appealed from is based, read, the briefs, heard argument on part of counsel, and have concluded that ample testimony appears in the record to support the conclusions of the Chancellor below.”
This quote establishes the appellate court's review of the evidence and its conclusion that the lower court's findings were supported.
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 filed a foreclosure suit on notes and a mortgage. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was not the legal owner due to insufficient a…
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 Assignment Of Mortgage cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before the Court on an appeal from a final decree of foreclosure entered by the Circuit Court of Lake County, Florida, on September 24, 1936. The equities were decreed in favor of the plaintiff and the property involved in the suit was ordered sold to pay the amount decreed to be due as found by the Chancellor below.
It was contended by counsel for Appellants, defendants below, that the plaintiff was not the owner of- the notes and mortgage sued upon and that the attempted assignment of the mortgage and the endorsement of the notes were in-, sufficient in law to authorize the plaintiff to maintain foreclosure thereon. He made a ¡similar contention in the lower court on final hearing, where the court heard the witnesses, considered the probative weight and value of the evidence in behalf of the respective parties and overruled and denied the asserted claims of the defendant.
We have reviewed the evidence upon which the final decree appealed from is based, read, the briefs, heard argument on part of counsel, and have concluded that ample testimony appears in the record to support the conclusions of the Chancellor below. The Court is of the opinion that no reversible error appears and that the final decree appealed from should be affirmed. See Farrington v. Harrison, 95 Fla. 769, 116 So. 497. It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, J., concur.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.