Lathers Land Co. v. New York Life Insurance

155 So. 723, 115 Fla. 639
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided June 26, 1934·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from two interlocutory orders entered in a mortgage foreclosure case wherein the appellant who was defendant below,, contends that the chancellor should have sustained a motion to dismiss tJie *640 bill and should have denied the appointment of a receiver for the mortgaged apartments.

The motion to dismiss was properly denied, because there was undeniably equity in the bill as a whole, and a general demurrer to it under the old practice would have been overruled, even in the face of the technical objections urged in •the motion to dismiss.

The order appointing a receiver should be affirmed on the authority of Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. Baumgartner, 99 Fla. 987, 128 Sou. Rep. 241.

Affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J! J., concur.

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

Lathers Land Co. v. New York Life Insurance, 155 So. 723, 115 Fla. 639 (Fla. 1934).

155 So. 723 (Lathers Land Co. v. New York Life Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dreka v. Whitehair
192 So. 321 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)