LOCK DAVIDSON AND E. W. THOMPSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE CITIZENS BUILDING & LOAN COMPANY, AN OHIO CORPORATION, AND C. O. WESTON AND ETHEL M. WESTON, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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 reversed a deficiency decree entered against the appellants, who were assignors and endorsers of mortgage notes. The court held that a deficiency decree could not be entered against such parties in a foreclosure suit.
No, the circuit court is not authorized to enter a deficiency decree against the payees and mortgagees who have become endorsers and assignors in due course of business.
“The question presented by this appeal, i. e., “Is the Circuit Court authorized, in a foreclosure suit, to enter a deficiency decree against the payees and mortgagees when they have become endorsers and assignors of the notes and mortgage in due and regular course of business,” was definitely answered by this Court in the negative and set at rest in accord with the contention of appellants in the opinion and judgment in the case of Younghusband vs. Fort Pierce Bank & Trust Company, decided October 29th, 1930, and reported in 130 Sou. 725.”
This quote states the legal question presented and references the precedent that answers it.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Lock Davidson and E. W. Thompson were the assignors and endorsers of mortgage notes and a mortgage. The appellee, The Citizens Building & L…
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 Foreclosure Suit cases and more on FLexlaw
— The appeal in this case is from an order in a foreclosure suit entering a deficiency decree against appellants, who were assignors of the mortgage and endorsers of the notes which constituted the cause of action. The deficiency order or decree was dated May 9th, 1930, and filed May 13th, 1930.
The question presented by this appeal, i. e., “Is the Circuit Court authorized, in a foreclosure suit, to enter a deficiency decree against the payees and mortgagees when they have become endorsers and assignors of the notes and mortgage in due and regular course of business,” was definitely answered by this Court in the negative and set at rest in accord with the contention of appellants in the opinion and judgment in the case of Younghusband vs. Fort Pierce Bank & Trust Company, decided October 29th, 1930, and reported in 130 Sou. 725.
*708On authority of the opinion and judgment in that case the decree appealed from should be reversed and it is so ordered.
Reversed.
Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.