Fatt v. Ventrone

Supreme Court of Florida

Fatt v. Ventrone

158 So. 272, 117 Fla. 715, 1934 Fla. LEXIS 1334

DecidedDecember 21, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 158 So. 272 (Fatt v. Ventrone) 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

Fatt v. Ventrone, 158 So. 272, 117 Fla. 715, 1934 Fla. LEXIS 1334 (Fla. 1934).

Pincite

Opinions

*716 Buford, J.

In this case appellee sought by a bill in chancery to cancel a bill of sale of personal property, or to have such bill of sale declared a mortgage and then have the mortgage declared to be invalid because of usury or else to have the bill of sale decreed to be a mortgage subject to redemption and to require an accounting and thereafter to decree the terms on which redemption should be had.

The bill of complaint alleged that the personal property was in the possession of the appellant, the defendant in the court below. The bill of complaint shows upon its facé that the complainant in the court below did not have a full; adequate and complete remedy at law. His contention was that the defendant in the court below was pledgee of certain personal property, to-wit: an automobile, to secure a loan and that the complainant was the pledgor, and that the pledgee unlawfully retained possession of the property under a purported bill of sale, which was in truth and fact a usurious mortgage.

Motion was made to dismiss the bill of complaint upon the ground, amongst others, that the bill was without equity and that it appears from the allegations of the bill that if complainant is entitled to any relief he has full, complete and adequate remedy at law. The motion should not have been granted as there was equity in the bill of complaint.

The decree appealed from should be affirmed and the-cause remanded for further proceedings.

It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Wi-iitfield, Ellis and Terrell, J. J.,. concur. Brown, J., concurs specially.

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

*716 Buford, J.

In this case appellee sought by a bill in chancery to cancel a bill of sale of personal property, or to have such bill of sale declared a mortgage and then have the mortgage declared to be invalid because of usury or else to have the bill of sale decreed to be a mortgage subject to redemption and to require an accounting and thereafter to decree the terms on which redemption should be had.

The bill of complaint alleged that the personal property was in the possession of the appellant, the defendant in the court below. The bill of complaint shows upon its facé that the complainant in the court below did not have a full; adequate and complete remedy at law. His contention was that the defendant in the court below was pledgee of certain personal property, to-wit: an automobile, to secure a loan and that the complainant was the pledgor, and that the pledgee unlawfully retained possession of the property under a purported bill of sale, which was in truth and fact a usurious mortgage.

Motion was made to dismiss the bill of complaint upon the ground, amongst others, that the bill was without equity and that it appears from the allegations of the bill that if complainant is entitled to any relief he has full, complete and adequate remedy at law. The motion should not have been granted as there was equity in the bill of complaint.

The decree appealed from should be affirmed and the-cause remanded for further proceedings.

It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Wi-iitfield, Ellis and Terrell, J. J.,. concur. Brown, J., concurs specially.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 So. 272, 117 Fla. 715, 1934 Fla. LEXIS 1334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fatt-v-ventrone-fla-1934.