ORTEGA COMPANY, A CORPORATION,

v.

L. E. MEEKER

Citator

Cited By

• August Tobler, Inc. v. Goolsby et ux., 67 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1953)
  …language of the notes, the only notice which the law could have required of the Goolsbys was of their election to accelerate the debt, which was effectively accomplished by the [*539] filing of the foreclosure suit. Murray v. Stalnaker, 154 Fla. 64, 16 So. 2d 650. And the instant case does not involve the forfeiture of any sum of money. Indeed, the Goolsbys, through their counsel, offered in open court to refund Tobler’s initial payment of $5,000, but the offer was refused. It is plain that as a matter of l…
• Scarfo v. Peever, 405 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
  …. Peever properly pled and argued the defense of a valid tender without actual notice. . River Holding Co. v. Nickel, 62 So. 2d 702, 704 (Fla.1952). . See August Tobler, Inc. v. Goolsby, 67 So. 2d 537 (Fla.1953); Murray v. Stalnaker, 154 Fla. 64, 16 So. 2d 650 (1944); Seligmann v. Bisz, 123 Fla. 493, 167 So. 38 (1936); Van Huss v. Prudential Ins. Co., 123 Fla. 20, 165 So. 896 (1936); Liles v. Savage, 121 Fla. 83, 163 So. 399 (1935); Douglas Properties v. Stix, 118 Fla. 354, 159 So. 1 (1935); Stegemann v.…
• Weiland v. Lechner Lumber Co., Inc., 137 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
  …PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Murray v. Stalnaker, 154 Fla. 64, 16 So. 2d 650. WTGGINTON, Acting C. J., and STUR-GIS and RAWLS, JJ., concur.…