Eastern Federal Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. Royal Park West, Inc., Defendants-Appellees-Cross
Opinion
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.
. 411 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1969)
. 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
459 F.2d 1391 (Eastern Federal Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. Royal Park West, Inc., Defendants-Appellees-Cross) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.