Lake v. Seaman Et Ux.

Supreme Court of Florida

Lake v. Seaman Et Ux.

134 So. 505, 101 Fla. 520

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided May 7, 1931·Published

Opinion

Buford, C. J.

—This was a suit to foreclose a mortgage. The • defense was made that the complainant had forfeited his right to recover because the contract was usurious and unenforceable under the provisions of section 4855 R. G. S., 6942, C. G. L.

Testimony was taken and a decree rendered in favor of the defendant. The decree should be affirmed on authority of the opinion and judgment in the case of McCullough et ux. vs. Hill, filed in this Court on April '23rd, 1931, and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.

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

Buford, C. J.

—This was a suit to foreclose a mortgage. The • defense was made that the complainant had forfeited his right to recover because the contract was usurious and unenforceable under the provisions of section 4855 R. G. S., 6942, C. G. L.

Testimony was taken and a decree rendered in favor of the defendant. The decree should be affirmed on authority of the opinion and judgment in the case of McCullough et ux. vs. Hill, filed in this Court on April '23rd, 1931, and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.

Lake v. Seaman Et Ux., 134 So. 505, 101 Fla. 520 (Fla. 1931).

Pincite

134 So. 505 (Lake v. Seaman Et Ux.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.