MRS. VELMA B. GRANAT, APPELLANT,
v.
A. F. DULBS, DOING BUSINESS AS A. F. DULBS & COMPANY, APPELLEE
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 in part and reversed in part a lower court's decree concerning a mechanic's lien foreclosure. The court upheld the personal decree against the principal but reversed the decree against the sureties on the release bond.
The court held that the decree awarding recovery against the principal was valid, but the decree awarding recovery against the sureties on the release bond was invalid. Therefore, the decree is affirmed as to the principal and reversed as to the sureties.
“it is considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby, affirmed in so far as the said decree awards recovery and a personel decree against the defendant below, Velma B. Granat.”
This quote establishes the part of the lower court's decree that was upheld.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA mechanic's lien was foreclosed, and the lower court entered a decree awarding recovery against the principal, Mrs. Velma B. Granat, and also against…
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 Costs On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon transcript of the record of the decree herein and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it is considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby, affirmed in so far as the said decree awards recovery and a personel decree against the defendant below, Velma B. Granat. The said decree is reversed in so far as it purports to. award re*1146covery in this suit against Harry E. Fry and Samuel H. Tobin as sureties upon the bond executed by Velma B. Granat as principal for the purpose of releasing the premises herein involved from the mechanic’s lien herein sought to be foreclosed.
The cause is remanded with directions to enter a decree in conformity with the rule adopted in Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. D. N. Morrison Construction Co., 126 So. R. 151. The costs of this appeal are to be taxed against the appellant Velina B. Granat.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur.
Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Milgrim v. Kinser, 105 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. D. N. Morrison Const. Co., Inc., of Virginia, 99 Fla. 309, 126 So. 151, and Granat v. Dulbs, 100 Fla. 1145, 130 So. 464. CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Larnel Builders, Inc. v. John Nicholas in Bankr. of C. B. S. Excavators, Inc., 123 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…trial court erred in denying its motion to transfer the cause to the law side of the court. This contention is without merit. See Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. D. N. Morrison Construction Company, 99 Fla. 309, 126 So. 151; Granat v. Dulbs, 100 Fla. 1145, 130 So. 464; Milgrim v. Kinser, Fla.App. 1958, 105 So. 2d 371. Appellant next contends that lower court erred in admitting into evidence testimony and exhibits to show a parol contract for the extras and equipment rental claimed in said lien where…
-
Kleinman v. BAL Harbour Towers, Inc., 188 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…ndent research, we find that, where the issue has been presented, the decision in Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. D. N. Morrison Const. Co., 99 Fla. 309, 126 So. 151 (1930), has been consistently followed by the courts of this State. See Granat v. Dulbs, 100 Fla. 1145, 130 So. 464 (1930); Royal Indemnity v. Knott, 101 Fla. 1495, 136 So. 474 (1931). See also Labell v. Campbell, 99 Fla. 1125, 128 So. 422 (1930); Florida Insurance Exchange v. Adler, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 75. But cf., opinion on rehearing in Royal…