Franceschini v. Ladd

Supreme Court of Florida

Franceschini v. Ladd

32 So. 2d 577, 159 Fla. 679, 1947 Fla. LEXIS 930

DecidedNovember 18, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 32 So. 2d 577 (Franceschini v. Ladd) 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

Franceschini v. Ladd, 32 So. 2d 577, 159 Fla. 679, 1947 Fla. LEXIS 930 (Fla. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

*680 CHAPMAN, J.:

The controlling question presented on this appeal is whether the appellant, Joseph Franceschini, was a holder in due course under the several provisions of Section 674.59, Fla. Stats, 1941 (FSA), and our decisions construing this Section, of a certain note and mortgage acquired by purchase before maturity, or did he purchase the note and mortgage with notice of infirmities within the meaning of Sections 674.61 and 674.71, supra, and our applicable decisions. The Chancellor below reviewed the evidence on final hearing and entered a decree in effect holding that the appellant purchased the note and mortgage with a knowledge of its infirmities and therefore was not in a position to enforce payment. An appeal has been perfected here.

The mortgagors (Paul O. Ladd and wife, Eulalia Marie Ladd) executed their note and mortgage in the sum of $3,-000.00 payable to Claudia Homes, wife of Harold S. Homes. The note and mortgage were for the first installment on a rifle range to cost $12,000.00 to be built at Key West by Harold S. Homes and Paul O. Ladd was to be a part owner and operator after the construction was completed. The note and mortgage were assigned by Claudia Homes and husband, Harold S. Homes, to a private corporation controlled and managed by Harold S. Homes known as American Home Defense Target Range Corporation. The appellant purchased this note and mortgage from Harold S. Homes for $2,750.00. Harold S. Homes failed to carry out his agreement with Ladd for the construction of the rifle range and shortly after the sale of the note and mortgage and receipt of the money disappeared and his testimony and that of his wife Claudia Homes is not in the record.

When all the testimony and exhibits are carefully considered it cannot be said that the Chancellor erred in entering the decree challenged on this record.' We find ample testimony in the record to support his findings and conclusions. See Sample v. Wilson, 101 Fla. 818, 134 So. 549.

Affirmed.

THOMAS, C. J., Terrell, and SEBRING, JJ., concur.

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

*680 CHAPMAN, J.:

The controlling question presented on this appeal is whether the appellant, Joseph Franceschini, was a holder in due course under the several provisions of Section 674.59, Fla. Stats, 1941 (FSA), and our decisions construing this Section, of a certain note and mortgage acquired by purchase before maturity, or did he purchase the note and mortgage with notice of infirmities within the meaning of Sections 674.61 and 674.71, supra, and our applicable decisions. The Chancellor below reviewed the evidence on final hearing and entered a decree in effect holding that the appellant purchased the note and mortgage with a knowledge of its infirmities and therefore was not in a position to enforce payment. An appeal has been perfected here.

The mortgagors (Paul O. Ladd and wife, Eulalia Marie Ladd) executed their note and mortgage in the sum of $3,-000.00 payable to Claudia Homes, wife of Harold S. Homes. The note and mortgage were for the first installment on a rifle range to cost $12,000.00 to be built at Key West by Harold S. Homes and Paul O. Ladd was to be a part owner and operator after the construction was completed. The note and mortgage were assigned by Claudia Homes and husband, Harold S. Homes, to a private corporation controlled and managed by Harold S. Homes known as American Home Defense Target Range Corporation. The appellant purchased this note and mortgage from Harold S. Homes for $2,750.00. Harold S. Homes failed to carry out his agreement with Ladd for the construction of the rifle range and shortly after the sale of the note and mortgage and receipt of the money disappeared and his testimony and that of his wife Claudia Homes is not in the record.

When all the testimony and exhibits are carefully considered it cannot be said that the Chancellor erred in entering the decree challenged on this record.' We find ample testimony in the record to support his findings and conclusions. See Sample v. Wilson, 101 Fla. 818, 134 So. 549.

Affirmed.

THOMAS, C. J., Terrell, and SEBRING, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 So. 2d 577, 159 Fla. 679, 1947 Fla. LEXIS 930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franceschini-v-ladd-fla-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack