Anderson v. Harrison
| Decision Date | 12 May 1917 |
| Citation | 73 Fla. 1044,75 So. 534 |
| Parties | ANDERSON et al. v. HARRISON. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Duval County; Daniel A. Simmons, Judge.
Foreclosure proceeding by Charles C. Harrison against Herbert L. Anderson and others. From interlocutory orders allowing the bill of complaint to be amended and overruling the demurrer to the amended bill and denying the motion to strike the bill Herbert L. Anderson and wife appeal. Orders affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Under Equity Rule 52 the chancellor may, in sustaining a demurrer permit an amendment to be made to the bill of complaint without a formal motion by the complainant; and the matter of costs may be adjusted then or subsequently upon appropriate application.
Where the purpose of a foreclosure suit is to require the mortgagor to pay the debt and other persons are made parties to protect their interest in the mortgaged property, a demurrer to the bill of complaint by such other persons is properly overruled.
Where a party directs immaterial documents to be copied into the transcript on appeal, the costs thereof will be taxed against such party.
COUNSEL Charles A. Powers and Herbert L. Anderson, both of Jacksonville, for appellants.
W. M Bostwick, Jr., of Jacksonville, for appellee.
Charles C. Harrison brought foreclosure proceedings, alleging, in effect, that P. A. Holt was indebted to complainant in the sum of $12,000, as evidenced by promissory notes; that to secure the payment of such notes the said Holt executed to complainant a mortgage upon described real estate; that in such mortgage it was covenanted and agreed that in case of default in the payment of any installment of principal or in the payment of interest thereon when the same should become due, it would be optional with the said mortgagee to treat the whole of said principal and interest as due, and to proceed to collect the same by foreclosure or otherwise, in which event, or either of them, the said mortgagor thereby covenanted and agreed that he would pay all costs, charges and expenses in and about the collection of said money, by suit or otherwise, including reasonable attorney's fees and that the same were thereby secured; 'that on June 5, 1914, one of said notes became due and payable, and the same was not paid when due, is still unpaid, and no part thereof has been paid; therefore complainant, exercising his aforesaid option to treat the whole of said principal and interest as due, hereby declares that the amount of principal now unpaid is $11,500, and that the same is now due, together with interest thereon as provided in said mortgage; that in said mortgage said P. A. Holt covenanted and agreed that he would pay all taxes and lawful assessments which he has failed to do; that defendant P. A. Holt having married since the execution of said mortgage, his wife is joined as a party defendant, but any interest she may have in the property is inferior to and subject to complainant's lien; that defendants Herbert L. Anderson and his wife are herein joined as parties defendant, for that this complainant is informed, and upon such information alleges the truth to be, that said defendants claim some interest, right, title, or estate in and to the said mortgaged premises herein sought to be foreclosed, but complainant is not advised as to what right, title, interest, or estate said defendants claim, but alleges that any right, title, interest, or estate of said defendants in and to said premises is inferior to and subject to complainant's lien thereon by reason and virtue of said mortgage.' 'Further that the said defendant ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- C. & R. Stores, Inc. v. Scarborough
-
Younghusband v. Ft. Pierce Bank & Trust Co.
... ... possible in order that his own liability may be minimized or ... averted. Titus v. Woods, 45 Cal.App. 541, 188 P. 68 ... See also Anderson v. Harrison, 73 Fla. 1044, 75 So ... 534; 42 C.J. 42, § 1555 ... [100 ... Fla. 1095] The note sued upon is indorsed: ... ...
-
Tunnicliffe v. Volusia County Bond & Mortgage Co.
...in the amount of the decree were corrected to what appellant says they should have been when the decree was entered. See Anderson v. Herrison, 73 Fla. 1044, 75 So. 534. decree of foreclosure rendered after a full hearing on the merits, which does not clearly appear to be erroneous, should n......