Black v. First Nat Bank of Brooksville

119 So. 521, 97 Fla. 22
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Black v. First Nat Bank of Brooksville. Read the opinion of the Court — 97 Fla. 19
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided February 20, 1929·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendants in error here, against whom a judgment for $50.00 was rendered in the trial court, could have taken a writ of error to such judgment against them.

The sale of the $23,000.00 collateral note to one of its makers for $5,000.00 under the circumstances shown, was a violation of the rights of the plaintiff in error, the owner of the collateral note, and there is no sufficient showing that plaintiff in error waived, abandoned or forfeited his rights in the premises. The record does not sustain a judgment for only $50.00 in favor of the plaintiff in error and he had a right to a review by writ of error.

Behearing denied.

Terrell, C. J. and Wi-iitfield, Ellis, Brown and Buford, J. J. concur.

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

Black v. First Nat Bank of Brooksville, 119 So. 521, 97 Fla. 22 (Fla. 1929).

119 So. 521 (Black v. First Nat Bank of Brooksville) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.