Berns v. Harrison

137 So. 238, 103 Fla. 162
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedOctober 17, 1931
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 137 So. 238 (Berns v. Harrison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Berns v. Harrison, 137 So. 238, 103 Fla. 162 (Fla. 1931).

Opinion

Bueord, C.J.

This appeal is from a decree modifying a final decree in compliance with the mandate of the Supreme Court in that regard. Berns et al. vs. Harrison, filed January 17, 1931, reported 131 Sou. 654. Complying with the mandate the Chancellor allowed the pleadings amended and testimony taken and then eliminated the sum of $2,000.00 allowed in the final decree for solicitor’s fees. This left a balance due the complainant, after applying the proceeds of sale under the foreclosure, in the sum of $8,459.10. The Chancellor then re-affirmed the deficiency decree for the sum of $2131.15, of which Order defendants complain, contending that the Chancellor was bound under the terms of the opinion, judgment and mandate of this *163 Court, supra, to reduce tlie deficiency decree to the same extent as the final decree was reduced. There is no merit in the contention. The final decree shows that there was more than $6,000.00 due the complainant, which the defendant's were not by the deficiency decree required to pay.

Certainly the defendants show no injustice to have been done them, nor do they show that the Chancellor has exercised the discretion vested in him arbitrarily and unjustly to the detriment of the defendants.

The decree is affirmed.

Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur.

Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

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

Related

Watson v. Stockton Morris Plan Co.
93 P.2d 855 (California Court of Appeal, 1939)
Jameson v. First Savings Bank & Trust Co.
51 P.2d 607 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1935)
People ex rel. Nelson v. Chicago Bank of Commerce
275 Ill. App. 68 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1934)
Thompson v. Beitia
69 F.2d 356 (Ninth Circuit, 1934)
Alabama-Florida Co. v. Mays
149 So. 61 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1933)
Mallett v. Tunnicliffe, as Liqdr.
148 So. 196 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1932)
Courtright v. Tunnicliffe
140 So. 777 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
137 So. 238, 103 Fla. 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berns-v-harrison-fla-1931.