Nevin v. Prudential Properties, Inc.

Supreme Court of Florida

Nevin v. Prudential Properties, Inc.

159 So. 866, 118 Fla. 134, 1934 Fla. LEXIS 1988

DecidedNovember 13, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 159 So. 866 (Nevin v. Prudential Properties, Inc.) 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

Nevin v. Prudential Properties, Inc., 159 So. 866, 118 Fla. 134, 1934 Fla. LEXIS 1988 (Fla. 1934).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The disposition of this case in the Supreme Court depends upon whether or not the evidence at trial in the court below was sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment.

The suit was an action in replevin. The defendant claimed right to possession of the property, which was a certain lot of furniture, by reason of the fact that he was assignee of the rights of a mortgagee who went into possession of the property with the knowledge and assent of the owner and he held the property to secure the payment in part of the mortgage lien, which mortgage was in the form of a bill of sale that his assignor was in possession of the property for a number of years prior to the assignment of his lien and that defendant was in possession of the property when the plaintiff in replevin was alleged to have acquired title to the property.

The evidence is conflicting. But, there is substantial evidence to support the verdict and judgment and, therefore, this Court should not assume to reverse the same.

The judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Brown, J., dissents.

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

Per Curiam.

The disposition of this case in the Supreme Court depends upon whether or not the evidence at trial in the court below was sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment.

The suit was an action in replevin. The defendant claimed right to possession of the property, which was a certain lot of furniture, by reason of the fact that he was assignee of the rights of a mortgagee who went into possession of the property with the knowledge and assent of the owner and he held the property to secure the payment in part of the mortgage lien, which mortgage was in the form of a bill of sale that his assignor was in possession of the property for a number of years prior to the assignment of his lien and that defendant was in possession of the property when the plaintiff in replevin was alleged to have acquired title to the property.

The evidence is conflicting. But, there is substantial evidence to support the verdict and judgment and, therefore, this Court should not assume to reverse the same.

The judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Brown, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 So. 866, 118 Fla. 134, 1934 Fla. LEXIS 1988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nevin-v-prudential-properties-inc-fla-1934.