HOWARD BERRY
v.
ALFRED RUDOLPH
HOWARD BERRY
ALFRED RUDOLPH
157 Fla. 178
Florida Supreme Court (1946)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 25 So. 2d 207
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
The order and judgment appealed from is reversed upon the authority of the opinions and decisions in Croft v. Culbreath, 150 Fla. 60, 6 So. (2nd) 638; Ex parte Earman, 85 Fla. 297, 95 So. 755, and cases therein cited, including the well considered opinion of Mr. Justice LAMAR in Gompers v. Buck Stove and Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 31 S.C. 492; 55 Law ed. 797.
Reversed.
*179CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL, BUFORD and BROWN, JJ., concur.
SEBRING, J., agrees to conclusion and judgment.
THOMAS and ADAMS, JJ., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ehrlich v. Mangicapra, 626 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…rtgage, or either.... Ehrlich now appeals a trial court order dismissing with prejudice his claim against Diane asserting her personal liability for the balance due on the note based upon this covenant. In Swanson v. Bennett, 157 Fla. 113, 115-17, 25 So. 2d 207, 208-09 (1946), the supreme court held that a similar mortgage covenant would support an action against a mortgagor, notwithstanding the lack of a viable cause of action against the mortgagor on the note itself. The court stated: We think that it i…
-
Ansin v. Lawyer's Title Guar. Fund, 26 Fla. Supp. 204 (St. Lucie Cty. Cir. Ct. 1966)…the signature on a libelous letter would not convert the letter into a contract and extend the statute of limitations for libel from two to twenty years. In Gulf Life Insurance Co. v. Hillsborough County, 176 So. 72 (1937), and Swanson v. Bennett, 25 So. 2d 207 (1946), the [*207] Supreme Court of Florida held that the twenty year period of limitations is not applicable merely because a writing under seal is involved in the transaction, but that it is necessary that the cause of action itself be contained i…
-
Ehrlich v. Mangicapra, 626 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…sums of money provided for in said note and this mortgage, or either.... Ehrlich now appeals a trial court order dismissing with prejudice Ehrlich’s claim against Diane based upon the covenant in the mortgage. In Swanson v. Bennett, 157 Fla. 113, 25 So. 2d 207, 208-09 (1946), the supreme court stated: We think that it is the generally accepted rule that if a mortgage contains a personal covenant whereby the mortgagor unconditionally promises to pay the debt for which the mortgage has been given as securi…
Authorities Cited
- Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 (U.S. 1911)
- Ex parte Earman, 85 Fla. 297 (Fla. 1923)
- Croft v. Culbreath, 150 Fla. 60 (Fla. 1942)