McCutchen v. Hillman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McCutchen v. Hillman

177 So. 2d 893, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4044

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 22, 1965

DocketNo. 65-259

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 177 So. 2d 893 (McCutchen v. Hillman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McCutchen v. Hillman, 177 So. 2d 893, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4044 (Fla. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

SWANN, Judge.

This is an interlocutory appeal to review an Order on Mandate entered by the trial court pursuant to an opinion of this court in a prior appeal. Hillman v. McCutchen, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 611. The facts are fully reported therein and it will serve no useful purpose to recite them here.

The trial court issued its Order on Mandate, requiring that the mortgaged property be sold unless the amounts it found to be due were paid. Petitioner challenges this order, claiming that she should have been permitted to present evidence on remand of the amounts due on the mortgage. The amounts due on the mortgage were ■determined after a full and complete hearing of the cause, prior to the first appeal.

There are no defenses or issues of facts to be decided that could not have been determined at the original trial of the cause, if they had been properly raised.

It is well settled that a judgment is conclusive as to defenses which have, or might have been set up. Florida Real Estate Commission v. Harris, Fla.1961, 134 So.2d 785.

For the reasons stated, the order appealed from is

Affirmed.

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