HOLLY HILL GROVE & FRUIT COMPANY, A CORPORATION APPELLANT,
v.
LEE W. WICKER AND MRS. LEE W. WICKER, APPELLEES

Fla. | 1931-04-14
Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
101 Fla. 181 Florida Supreme Court (1931) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.

*184Per Curiam.

The record in this cause having been considered by the Court, and the foregoing opinion prepared under Chapter 14553, Acts of 1929, adopted by the Court as its opinion, it is considered, ordered, and decreed by the Court that the decree of the court below should be, and the same is hereby, reversed; and this cause is remanded with directions to enter the usual decree, for the complainant for the amount found to be due complainant for principal and interest upon the purchase-money contracts and the further sum of $601.30 for care and maintenance of the groves and with a deduction from the amount found due complainant of $132.81 allowed defendant for fruit removed from the groves.

Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • McComb v. Hygeia Coca-Cola Bottling Works, 137 Fla. 260 (Fla. 1939)
    …mbiguous contract by showing that while he signed the same, there was an agreement resting in parol that he was not bound by the terms thereof. Such pleas' present no defense and were held bad on demurrer. See Holly Hill Grove & Fruit Co. v. Wicker, 101 Fla. 181, 133 So. 622; Stonebraker v. Reliance Life Ins. Co., 123 Fla. 244, 166 So. 583; Milton v. Burton, 79 Fla. 266, 84 So. 147; Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. Hoskins, 71 Fla. 282, 71 So. 285; Bryan v. St. Andrews Bay Corn. Hotel Corp., 99 Fla. 132, 126 So. 14…
  • Wicker v. Hampton, 104 Fla. 400 (Fla. 1932)
    …en contract dated March 10, 1923. There was no error in the ruling striking this testimony. Porter v. Sims, 55 Fla. 504, 46 Sou. Rep. 420; Sparks Enterprises, Inc. v. Christman, 95 Fla. 928, 117 Sou. Rep. 388; Holly Hill Grove & Fruit Co. v. Wicker, 101 Fla. 181, 133 So. Rep. 622. But assuming that the case was within the exception to the rule that when an assignment is in writing parol evidence cannot be introduced to alter or vary it, except when the rule becomes inapplicable to assignments which from th…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw