Warren v. Seminole Bond & Mortgage Co.

151 So. 291, 112 Fla. 363
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided October 17, 1933·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

" Per Curiam.

In a suit, brought to foreclose a mortgage by the appellees against the appellants the defense of usury was interpos'ed in answer and in counter claim embraced in the answer.

The appellees were the original mortgagees.

The decree was in favor of the complainants.

We think the decree should be reversed on authority of the cases of McCullough v. Hill, 105 Fla. 680, 133 Sou. 846; Tucker v. Fouts, 73 Fla. 1215, 76 Sou. 130; Benson v. First *364 Trust & Savings Bank, 105 Fla. 135, 142 Sou. 887. It is so ordered.

Reversed.

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

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

Warren v. Seminole Bond & Mortgage Co., 151 So. 291, 112 Fla. 363 (Fla. 1933).

151 So. 291 (Warren v. Seminole Bond & Mortgage Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Warren, Et Ux. v. Seminole Bond Mortgage Co.
172 So. 696 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)