BENNIE MANISCALCO, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

Citator

Cited By

• Alabama-Florida Co. v. Mays, 111 Fla. 100 (Fla. 1933)
  …rtgage was alien upon all the lands conveyed. We are unable to agree with this contention. The following cases were cited in support of appellant’s argument: McKeown v. Collins, supra; Wilson v. Davis, 80 Fla. 727, 86 So. 686, and Holmes v. Dunning, 133 So. 557. Neither of these is in point. In the first case the lien on the land conveyed was reserved in the note given for that part of the purchase price which was unpaid, and in the second case the lien to secure the payment of the purcha.se money was rese…
• Richardson v. S. Fla. Mortg. Co., 102 Fla. 313 (Fla. 1931)
  …reditor or one.who has succeeded to his rights. See Reid v. Murrell, ... Fla. ..., 130 South. Rep. 713; Close v. Webster, ...Fla. ..., 132 South. Rep. 814; Britt v. First Nat. Bank, 97 Fla. 284, 120 South. Rep. 554; Holmes v. Dunning, ... Fla. . .., 133 South. Rep. 557; Szold v. Siekler, . . Fla. ., 133 South. Rep. 559; Berns v. Harrison, . . Fla. . . , 131 South. Rep. 654. The South Florida Mortgage Company had no standing-in court as a complainant in the foreclosure proceedings not only because it had no intere…
• Bishop v. Orange Belt Sec. Co., 127 Fla. 709 (Fla. 1937)
  …be enforced in equity. Margarum v. J. S. Christie Orange Co., 37 Fla. 165, 19 So. 637; Connor v. Connor, 59 Fla. 467, 52 So. 727; Longdon v. Wakeley, 62 Fla. 530, 56 So. 408; Walker v. Heege, 78 Fla. 667, 83 So. 605; Holmes v. Dunning, 101 Fla. 55, 133 So. 557. It is our view that the Chancellor was correct in holding the “fiscal year”, as employed in'paragraph four of the contract to begin on the third day of March of each year. That was the date the contract may be said to have been amended and the dat…

Authorities Cited

• Hunter v. State, 85 Fla. 91 (Fla. 1923)