Dream Homes, Inc. v. Kurman

Supreme Court of Florida

Dream Homes, Inc. v. Kurman

10 So. 2d 661, 152 Fla. 31, 1942 Fla. LEXIS 683

DecidedDecember 4, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 10 So. 2d 661 (Dream Homes, Inc. v. Kurman) 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

Dream Homes, Inc. v. Kurman, 10 So. 2d 661, 152 Fla. 31, 1942 Fla. LEXIS 683 (Fla. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

BUFORD, J.:

In suit for accounting testimony was taken on the issues presented by bill and answer, with the result that it was shown that the plaintiff had parted with all rights which it may have had against defendant before institution of suit. Plaintiff’s grantee and assignee (a trustee for the benefit of creditors of plaintiff) was not made a party to the suit. It was shown, as alleged in the answer, that defendant had made full and complete settlement of the involved transaction with plaintiff’s grantee and assignee.

The chancellor found that plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendant at the date of institution of the suit and dismissed the bill of complaint.

No reversible error is made to appear and decree is affirmed.

So ordered.

Affirmed.

BROWN, C. J„ WHITFIELD, and ADAMS, JJ„ concur.

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

BUFORD, J.:

In suit for accounting testimony was taken on the issues presented by bill and answer, with the result that it was shown that the plaintiff had parted with all rights which it may have had against defendant before institution of suit. Plaintiff’s grantee and assignee (a trustee for the benefit of creditors of plaintiff) was not made a party to the suit. It was shown, as alleged in the answer, that defendant had made full and complete settlement of the involved transaction with plaintiff’s grantee and assignee.

The chancellor found that plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendant at the date of institution of the suit and dismissed the bill of complaint.

No reversible error is made to appear and decree is affirmed.

So ordered.

Affirmed.

BROWN, C. J„ WHITFIELD, and ADAMS, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 So. 2d 661, 152 Fla. 31, 1942 Fla. LEXIS 683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dream-homes-inc-v-kurman-fla-1942.