UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK
v.
MARGARET L. BENDER, BY HER NEXT FRIEND, O. F. BENDER
UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK
MARGARET L. BENDER, BY HER NEXT FRIEND, O. F. BENDER
122 Fla. 193
Florida Supreme Court (1935)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 164 So. 927
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
The decree in this cas'e is affirmed upon the authority of Phenix Insurance Company v. Hillard, 59 Fla. 590, 52 So. 799; Taylor v. Glenn Falls Insurance Company, 44 Fla. 273, 32 So. 887, and Orient Insurance Company v. Peacock, et al., 115 Fla. 525, 155 So. 724.
Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cassel v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 143 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…the surplus therefrom into the registry of the court in order to be permitted to raise any question as to the disposition of the surplus fund. The logic and reasoning behind the above is well stated in Munck v. Manatee River Bank & Trust Co., 1935, 122 Fla. 193, 165 So. 57, wherein the court, through Justice Terrell, said: “The very purpose of a mortgage foreclosure suit is to enforce the mortgage lien against the title or interest of the mortgagor. It does not concern itself with collateral and other int…
-
Irenee ROY v. Enter. Bldg. Corp., 561 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…oreclosure suit is to enforce the mortgage lien against the title or interest of the mortgagor. It does not concern itself with collateral and other interests or claims with which complainant has no concern. Munck v. Manatee River Bank & Trust Co., 122 Fla. 193, 165 So. 57 (1935) (citations omitted). Enterprise admitted in its complaint that Roy advanced “$1 million of the $2 million loan evidenced by the mortgage.” Whether the money represented corporate funds or purchaser’s deposits does not render the m…
Authorities Cited
- Phenix Ins. Co. v. Hilliard, 59 Fla. 590 (Fla. 1910)
- Taylor v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 44 Fla. 273 (Fla. 1902)