Lanier v. Chancy

80 So. 312, 76 Fla. 443, 1918 Fla. LEXIS 337
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedNovember 9, 1918
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 80 So. 312 (Lanier v. Chancy) 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
Lanier v. Chancy, 80 So. 312, 76 Fla. 443, 1918 Fla. LEXIS 337 (Fla. 1918).

Opinion

Whitfield, J.

In an action of replevin Chancy recovered a mule from Lanier, who took writ of error. Chancy sold the mule to one McDonald, retaining title till payment of purchase price. Lanier was in possession of the mule purchased from one Love. Chancy had not been paid for the mule. The defendant did not show or offer to show specific facts indicating express or implied authority from Chancy to McDonald to sell the mule so as [444]*444to avoid the retention of title by Chancy, if that could be done in this class of cases.

Affirmed.

Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.

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

Related

Maas Bros. v. Guaranty Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
180 So. 2d 195 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)
Trumbull Chevrolet Sales Co. v. Seawright
134 So. 2d 829 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1961)
Commercial Credit Co. Inc. v. Parker
132 So. 640 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)
Glass v. Continental Guaranty Corp.
88 So. 876 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1921)
Edwards v. Baldwin Piano Co.
83 So. 915 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
80 So. 312, 76 Fla. 443, 1918 Fla. LEXIS 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lanier-v-chancy-fla-1918.