Kersey, Et Ux. v. Sinclair Refining Company

147 So. 844, 109 Fla. 528
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedApril 25, 1933
StatusPublished

This text of 147 So. 844 (Kersey, Et Ux. v. Sinclair Refining Company) 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
Kersey, Et Ux. v. Sinclair Refining Company, 147 So. 844, 109 Fla. 528 (Fla. 1933).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a foreclosure case in which the final decree was against the mortgagors. The order striking the answer of the mortgagor’s wife questioning the validity of her acknowledgment of the mortgage was properly made by the court on the authority of Herald v. Hardin, 95 Fla. 889, 116 Sou. Rep. 863. The final decree foreclosing the mortgage was entered after full hearing on the merits and does not appear to be clearly erroneous, so it must be affirmed on the authority of Tunnicliffe v. Volusia County Bond & Mortgage Co. (Fla.), 137 Sou. Rep. 885.

Affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

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

Related

Herald v. Hardin
116 So. 863 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1928)
Tunnicliffe v. Volusia County Bond & Mortgage Co.
137 So. 885 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
147 So. 844, 109 Fla. 528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kersey-et-ux-v-sinclair-refining-company-fla-1933.