Richards v. Samuel

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Richards v. Samuel

184 So. 2d 516, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5704

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 22, 1966

DocketNo. 65-591

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 184 So. 2d 516 (Richards v. Samuel) 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

Richards v. Samuel, 184 So. 2d 516, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5704 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, defendant, contends that a judgment against him for the return of certain money of the appellee is erroneous. He does not urge that the money is not due the appellee, but maintains that the judgment was based upon an agreement to repay which is invalid under the law of the situs of the contract. See Mississippi Valley Trust Co. v. Begley, 298 Mo. 684, 252 S.W. 76 (1923). But cf., Weisert v. Bramman, 358 Mo. 636, 216 S.W.2d 430 (1948).

We hold that there is evidence to support the judgment for the admitted indebtedness, and that the judgment must be affirmed regardless of the validity of the subsequent agreement recognizing the debt. The judgment is affirmed upon the rule that an appellate court will not reverse a judgment where the record, considered as an entirety, shows that a just conclusion was reached. See Griffin v. Dothan Guano Co., 93 Fla. 1104, 113 So. 563 (1927).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, defendant, contends that a judgment against him for the return of certain money of the appellee is erroneous. He does not urge that the money is not due the appellee, but maintains that the judgment was based upon an agreement to repay which is invalid under the law of the situs of the contract. See Mississippi Valley Trust Co. v. Begley, 298 Mo. 684, 252 S.W. 76 (1923). But cf., Weisert v. Bramman, 358 Mo. 636, 216 S.W.2d 430 (1948).

We hold that there is evidence to support the judgment for the admitted indebtedness, and that the judgment must be affirmed regardless of the validity of the subsequent agreement recognizing the debt. The judgment is affirmed upon the rule that an appellate court will not reverse a judgment where the record, considered as an entirety, shows that a just conclusion was reached. See Griffin v. Dothan Guano Co., 93 Fla. 1104, 113 So. 563 (1927).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 So. 2d 516, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richards-v-samuel-fladistctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack