Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Bates

Supreme Court of Florida

Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Bates

146 So. 900, 109 Fla. 194

DecidedMarch 23, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 146 So. 900 (Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Bates) 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

Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Bates, 146 So. 900, 109 Fla. 194 (Fla. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Buford, J.

The case is before us on appeal from an order dismissing a bill of complaint to foreclose a chattel mortgage as against two married women defendants.

The mortgage was one creating a lien on crops and was given to secure the payment of the purchase price of fertilizer used to produce such crops. Whether or not the or-, der dismissing the bill of complaint as to the two married women was error depends upon whether or not the Court finds that the property pledged was the separate property of the two married women and that the debt secured thereby was the debt of the husbands. If the married women executed the mortgage to secure the purchase price of fertilizer used to produce crops which constituted their separate property respectively, then the debt was not the debt of the husbands but was the debt of the married women and the mortgage would be good as a contract in writing for the benefit of the seperate estate of each and that separate property could be subjected in this suit to satisfaction of the debt.

On the other hand, if the crops belonged to the husbands and they executed a mortgage which was good as between the parties, the respective wives would not be proper parties, to the suit and would not be affected by the result of the suit.

We, therefore, reverse the decree with directions that the Chancellor again consider the motion to dismiss the bill as to the married women and first determine the questions *196 above suggested and thereupon make his order based upon his findings as to the ownership of the property involved.

It is so ordered.-

Reversed with directions.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Brown, J. J., concur.

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

Buford, J.

The case is before us on appeal from an order dismissing a bill of complaint to foreclose a chattel mortgage as against two married women defendants.

The mortgage was one creating a lien on crops and was given to secure the payment of the purchase price of fertilizer used to produce such crops. Whether or not the or-, der dismissing the bill of complaint as to the two married women was error depends upon whether or not the Court finds that the property pledged was the separate property of the two married women and that the debt secured thereby was the debt of the husbands. If the married women executed the mortgage to secure the purchase price of fertilizer used to produce crops which constituted their separate property respectively, then the debt was not the debt of the husbands but was the debt of the married women and the mortgage would be good as a contract in writing for the benefit of the seperate estate of each and that separate property could be subjected in this suit to satisfaction of the debt.

On the other hand, if the crops belonged to the husbands and they executed a mortgage which was good as between the parties, the respective wives would not be proper parties, to the suit and would not be affected by the result of the suit.

We, therefore, reverse the decree with directions that the Chancellor again consider the motion to dismiss the bill as to the married women and first determine the questions *196 above suggested and thereupon make his order based upon his findings as to the ownership of the property involved.

It is so ordered.-

Reversed with directions.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Brown, J. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 So. 900, 109 Fla. 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-cotton-oil-co-v-bates-fla-1933.