FLORIDA STATE BUREAU OF PUBLICITY, L. A. SCHROEDER, SR., AND R. L. WARNER
v.
CORA BELLE BOLSTER
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 lower court's decision to deny a motion to dismiss a suit seeking to cancel a contract based on fraud and violation of the Uniform Sale of Securities Act. The appellate court found the allegations of fraud sufficient and the record contained irregularities that precluded reversal.
The court affirmed the lower court's denial of the motion to dismiss, finding the allegations of fraud sufficient and the record containing sufficient irregularities to prevent reversal.
“The record points to so much that on its face is irregular and off-color that we cannot reverse the chancellor on the showing made.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for affirming the lower court's decision, indicating that the record contained sufficient problematic elements to justify upholding the chancellor's ruling.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee filed a suit in equity to cancel a contract, alleging fraud and violation of the Uniform Sale of Securities Act. Appellants answered, denying…
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.
This is a suit in equity by appellee as complainant to cancel a contract that was entered into between appellant and appellee on the ground of fraud and for the reason that it was violative of the Uniform Sale of Securities Act. There was an answer to the amended bill of complaint which denied all the material allegations *570thereof. Testimony was taken by complainant at the conclusion of which defendant moved to dismiss the amended bill of complaint. This motion was denied and defendant appealed.
Appellant relies on failure of the evidence to show that the contract was procured by fraud, or that it was in violation of the Florida Uniform Sale of Securities Act.
On the latter question, we are not clear, and express no opinion, but on the question of fraud, the allegations of the amended bill of complaint are sufficient. The record points to so much that on its face is irregular and off-color that we cannot reverse the chancellor on the showing made.
His judgment is therefore affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Thomas, j., agrees to conclusion.
Buford, J., dissents.
Justice Brown not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.