Wallace v. Burchard

Supreme Court of Florida

Wallace v. Burchard

150 So. 800, 112 Fla. 733, 1933 Fla. LEXIS 2340

DecidedNovember 13, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 150 So. 800 (Wallace v. Burchard) 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

Wallace v. Burchard, 150 So. 800, 112 Fla. 733, 1933 Fla. LEXIS 2340 (Fla. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This case is not unlike that of A. F. Wallace v. A. W. Gage, as Trustee, which is here as a companion proceeding on writ of error.

In this case judgment at law was recovered oh certain other of the notes that had been executed by the mortgagor to the trustee, as referred to in the opinion in Wallace v. Gage, supra. The recovery in this case was for $6,500.00 principal, $1,359.23 interest, and $835.23 attorney’s fees.

All the points of law raised in this case are sufficiently discussed in the opinion filed in the case of Wallace v. Gage, above referred to, so we shall not repeat them here. It is sufficient to say that no error has been made to appear in the proceedings at law to which the writ of error in this case was taken, although plaintiff in error may have a remedy in equity to protect himself from liability in the suits at law, in excess of the total $20,000.00 debt, $15,000.00 of which appears to have been realized on the foreclosure of a mortgage securing these same notes, which in addition to a judgment for $2,000.00 obtained and upheld in the companion case that involved two other notes constituting a part of the same series secured by the same mortgage.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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

Per Curiam.

This case is not unlike that of A. F. Wallace v. A. W. Gage, as Trustee, which is here as a companion proceeding on writ of error.

In this case judgment at law was recovered oh certain other of the notes that had been executed by the mortgagor to the trustee, as referred to in the opinion in Wallace v. Gage, supra. The recovery in this case was for $6,500.00 principal, $1,359.23 interest, and $835.23 attorney’s fees.

All the points of law raised in this case are sufficiently discussed in the opinion filed in the case of Wallace v. Gage, above referred to, so we shall not repeat them here. It is sufficient to say that no error has been made to appear in the proceedings at law to which the writ of error in this case was taken, although plaintiff in error may have a remedy in equity to protect himself from liability in the suits at law, in excess of the total $20,000.00 debt, $15,000.00 of which appears to have been realized on the foreclosure of a mortgage securing these same notes, which in addition to a judgment for $2,000.00 obtained and upheld in the companion case that involved two other notes constituting a part of the same series secured by the same mortgage.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 So. 800, 112 Fla. 733, 1933 Fla. LEXIS 2340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallace-v-burchard-fla-1933.