Beaty v. Inlet Beach, Inc.

Supreme Court of Florida

Beaty v. Inlet Beach, Inc.

10 So. 2d 807, 152 Fla. 276, 1943 Fla. LEXIS 886

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Beaty v. Inlet Beach, Inc.. Read the opinion of the Court — 151 Fla. 495 →

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided January 8, 1943·Published

Opinion

*277 PER CURIAM:

On reconsideration of petition to recall mandate and reconsider our opinion filed herein on September 29, 1942, we delete from our opinion the sentence, viz: “The Hollywood Development and Harbor Co. accepted the over-payment of $32.25 at the mortgage foreclosure sale, and is estopped to claim it was not properly served in the foreclosure proceedings.” The deletion does not affect our judgment and the motion to recall mandate is denied.

So ordered.

BROWN, C. J., WHITFIELD, BUFORD, CHAPMAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur. TERRELL and ADAMS, JJ., dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*277 PER CURIAM:

On reconsideration of petition to recall mandate and reconsider our opinion filed herein on September 29, 1942, we delete from our opinion the sentence, viz: “The Hollywood Development and Harbor Co. accepted the over-payment of $32.25 at the mortgage foreclosure sale, and is estopped to claim it was not properly served in the foreclosure proceedings.” The deletion does not affect our judgment and the motion to recall mandate is denied.

So ordered.

BROWN, C. J., WHITFIELD, BUFORD, CHAPMAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur. TERRELL and ADAMS, JJ., dissent.

Beaty v. Inlet Beach, Inc., 10 So. 2d 807, 152 Fla. 276, 1943 Fla. LEXIS 886 (Fla. 1943).

Pincite

10 So. 2d 807 (Beaty v. Inlet Beach, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.