HAL. S. HARRIS, APPELLANT,
v.
W. E. ROBERTSON AND DELLA A. ROBERTSON, FORMERLY HIS WIFE, ELI A. ROBERTSON, A. C. FREEMAN, GEORGE H. BUNKER, E. F. CHILDERS, E. W. POOSER, J. H. TREADWELL, A. B. WILLIFORD, W. S. BRYANT AND MARGARET BRYANT, HIS WIFE, WARREN JOHNSON AND J. G. KING, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ARCADIA, R. S. HALL, J. G. BOYD AND EUGENE HOLTSINGER, 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 lower court's decision to overrule exceptions to a defendant's answer in a mortgage foreclosure suit. The court found that the defenses raised in the answer were legally sufficient.
Yes, the defenses of payment and release of mortgage were legally sufficient. The lower court erred in overruling the exceptions to the answer.
“The complainant is- alleged to be the owner of said notes who purchased same for a valuable consideration in the ordinary course of business before maturity and Avithout any knowledge or notice of any equities existing between the original parties thereto, if any in fact existed.”
This quote describes the complainant's status as a holder in due course, which is a key element in the foreclosure suit.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA complainant filed suit to foreclose a mortgage, alleging they were a holder in due course of the promissory notes secured by the mortgage. The defen…
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 Negotiable Instruments cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
— This is a suit brought to foreclose a mortgage upon certain described real estate, which Avas given to secure the payment of certain promissory notes, which appear to be negotiable instruments. The complainant is-alleged to be the owner of said notes who purchased same for a valuable consideration in the ordinary course of business before maturity and Avithout any knowledge or notice of any equities existing between the original parties thereto, if any in fact existed.
Answers were filed in which it Avas averred, among other things, that the indebtedness secured by said mortgage had been fully paid to the original mortgagee and that he had released and cancelled said mortgage as to a portion of the property described therein. The portions of the answers setting up these defenses were duly excepted to by complainant. Upon a hearing before the Circuit Judge the exceptions were overruled and this appeal is from the orders overruling the exceptions to the answers. It appears that the complainant became the owner of the note before Chapter 6909, Acts of 1915, became a law.
The orders appealed from are reversed upon the authority of First Nat. Bank of Quincy v. Guyton, 72 Fla. 43, 72 South. Rep. 460; Northrup v. Reese, 68 Fla. 451, 67 South. Rep. 136, L. R. A. 1915 F, 554; Taylor v. American National Bank of Pensacola, Fla., 63 Fla. 631, 57 South. Rep. 678, Ann. Cas. 1914 A, 309; Scott 1. Taylor, 63 Fla. 612, 58 South. Rep. 30.
All concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miami Mortg. & Guar. Co. v. Drawdy, 99 Fla. 1092 (Fla. 1930)…assignment of the latter. See Taylor v. American Nat. Bank, 63 Fla. 631, 57 So. R. 678, Ann. Cas. 1914 A. 390 n; McClure v. American Nat. Bank, 67 Fla. 32, 64 So. R. 427; Collins v. W. C. Briggs, Inc., — Fla. —, 123 So. R. 833; Harris v. Robertson, 77 Fla. 214, 81 So. R. 224; Evins v. Gainesville Nat. Bank, 80 Fla. 84, 85 So. R. 659; Scott v. Taylor, 63 Fla. 612, 58 So. R. 30. The right to foreclose the mortgage for the failure to pay an interest installment although the principal sum may not be due is u…
-
Voorhis v. Crutcher, 98 Fla. 259 (Fla. 1929)…all negotiable paper, independently of the existence of any mortgage or other security.” The holding as stated above has been affirmed in Taylor v. American National Bank of Pensacola, 64 Fla. 525, 60 So. R. 783, and in Harris v. Robertson et al., 77 Fla. 214, 81 So. R. 224. See also Northrup et al. v. Reese, 68 Fla. 451, 67 So. R. 136. [*263] It appears unnecessary to go beyond this jurisdiction for authority to support the judgment of the lower court. In Webb v. Blanc, 39 Fla. 224, 22 So. R. 655, this…
Authorities Cited
- Taylor v. Am. Nat'l Bank of Pensacola, 63 Fla. 631 (Fla. 1912)
- Scott v. Taylor, 63 Fla. 612 (Fla. 1912)
- Northup v. Reese, 68 Fla. 451 (Fla. 1914)
- State v. Grable, 72 Fla. 61 (Fla. 1916)
- First Nat'l Bank of Quincy v. Guyton, 72 Fla. 43 (Fla. 1916)