Stadler v. Miami Bank & Trust Co.

132 So. 648, 100 Fla. 1658
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJanuary 9, 1931
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 132 So. 648 (Stadler v. Miami Bank & Trust Co.) 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
Stadler v. Miami Bank & Trust Co., 132 So. 648, 100 Fla. 1658 (Fla. 1931).

Opinion

*1659 Per Curiam.

This appeal is from a final decree in a mortgage foreclosure. The only errors assigned are that the court erred in the allowance of attorney’s fees and in the granting of a deficiency decree against the receiver of the Flagler Bank and Trust Company.

We have examined the record and do not think either assignment is well supported. There was sufficient predicate for the award of an attorney’s fee and there is no contention or showing that the fee allowed was excessive. As to the granting of a deficiency decree it is contended that such decrees can be granted only against the original mortgagor and that the receiver of the Flagler Bank and Trust Company against whom the deficiency decree was granted, was not the original mortgagor but merely assumed and agreed to pay the note secured by the mortgage which was foreclosed.

The record discloses that the Flagler Bank and Trust Company assumed payment of the note and mortgage brought in question and to all intents and purposes, placed' itself in the position of the original mortgagor. We. do not think the statute now in force, Chapter 11993, Acts of 1927 (Section 5751 Comp. Gen. Laws of 1927) as amended by Chapter 13625, Acts of 1929, Laws of Florida, is susceptible of the interpretation contended for by appellant and the decisions of this Court tend to the contrary view. Exchange Bank of Tampa v. Clark, Ray, Johnson Company, 95 Fla. 734, 116 So. R. 648; Letchworth v. Koon et ux., 99 Fla. 451, 127 So. R. 321.

Affirmed.

Terrell, C. J., and Ellis, and Brown, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

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

Related

Adams v. Fisher
390 So. 2d 1248 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Simmons v. Gryzmish
181 N.E. 191 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 So. 648, 100 Fla. 1658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stadler-v-miami-bank-trust-co-fla-1931.