Eastern Federal Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. Royal Park West, Inc., Defendants-Appellees-Cross

Fifth Circuit

Eastern Federal Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. Royal Park West, Inc., Defendants-Appellees-Cross

459 F.2d 1391

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 13, 1972

Docket71-3598

StatusPublished

This text of 459 F.2d 1391 (Eastern Federal Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. Royal Park West, Inc., Defendants-Appellees-Cross) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eastern Federal Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. Royal Park West, Inc., Defendants-Appellees-Cross, 459 F.2d 1391 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

There being issues of fact as to damages for resolution by the jury and sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict under the Boeing Co. v. Shipman 1 standard, and the deed having been delivered and conveying property to the grantee in full, unconditional satisfaction of the debt rather than as security to be held for the payment of the debt, under the clear terms of'the agreement between the parties, so that there was no mortgage under Florida law, 2 we affirm the judgment of the district court in all respects, both as to appeal and cross-appeal.

Affirmed.

1

. 411 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1969)

2

. Florida Statutes § 697.01(1), F.S.A.; Holmberg v. Hardee, 90 Fla. 787, 108 So. 211 (1926); Pilkington v. Rose, 88 Fla. 547, 102 So. 751 (1925).

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

PER CURIAM:

There being issues of fact as to damages for resolution by the jury and sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict under the Boeing Co. v. Shipman 1 standard, and the deed having been delivered and conveying property to the grantee in full, unconditional satisfaction of the debt rather than as security to be held for the payment of the debt, under the clear terms of'the agreement between the parties, so that there was no mortgage under Florida law, 2 we affirm the judgment of the district court in all respects, both as to appeal and cross-appeal.

Affirmed.

1

. 411 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1969)

2

. Florida Statutes § 697.01(1), F.S.A.; Holmberg v. Hardee, 90 Fla. 787, 108 So. 211 (1926); Pilkington v. Rose, 88 Fla. 547, 102 So. 751 (1925).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

459 F.2d 1391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eastern-federal-corporation-plaintiff-appellant-cross-v-royal-park-west-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack