Hair v. Commercial Bank of Live Oak
| Decision Date | 28 October 1933 |
| Citation | 152 So. 180,112 Fla. 499 |
| Parties | HAIR v. COMMERCIAL BANK OF LIVE OAK. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 28, 1933.
Rule to show cause by the Commercial Bank of Live Oak against Margaret G. Hair why a writ of assistance should not be issued against respondent under foreclosure decree and sale of mortgaged property. From an order striking parts of answer to rule and awarding writ, defendant appeals.
Affirmed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Suwanee County; H W. Adams, judge.
Stafford Caldwell, of Jacksonville, for appellant.
Jno. F Harrell, of Live Oak, for appellee.
The court below held the answer of the appellant, Margaret G Hair, to a rule to show cause why a writ of assistance should not be issued against her under a foreclosure decree and sale of mortgaged property, to be insufficient, and awarded the writ of assistance to issue as prayed for in the petition to which the appellant's answer was rejected. The appeal is solely from the court's order striking parts of the answer to the rule for writ of assistance and awarding such writ.
The transcript shows that the final decree of foreclosure was entered June 17, 1930, that the mortgaged property was sold by a special master, and that the sale was confirmed by a decree dated July 10, 1930. The petition for a writ of assistance was not filed until February 21, 1931, more than six months after the confirmation decree of July 10, 1930 had become nonappealable and final.
A writ of assistance is a form of process issued by a court of equity to transfer the possession of lands, the title or right to the possession of which, it has previously adjudicated, as a means of enforcement of its decree, instead of turning the party over to a court of law to recover possession. Ann. Cases 1913D, 1120, note.
The power to issue a writ of assistance is predicated upon the principle that the jurisdiction of a court of equity to enforce its decrees is coextensive with its jurisdiction to determine the rights of the parties to the suit, thereby enabling the equity court to carry its decrees into execution, where it can do so justly, without relying upon the co-operation of any other tribunal.
The only question to be decided on an application for a writ of assistance after a mortgage foreclosure, sale, and confirmation of sale, is whether or not the sale and confirmation thereof have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Warford
...has been specifically foreclosed. Phillips v. Acacia Mutual Life Insurance Co., 124 Fla. 179, 168 So. 34 (1936); Hair v. Commercial Bank, 112 Fla. 499, 152 So. 180 (1933). Appellants argue that the plain language of the judgment, that defendants' redemption claims were "forever barred," ind......
-
Levi v. Levi
... ... Snehoda v. First National Bank, 115 Kan. 836, 840, ... 224 P. 914. This rule has been applied repeatedly ... 634, 103 N.W. 300, 106 N.W. 1016, 10 ... Ann.Cas. 1039; Hair v. Commercial Bank of Live Oak, ... 112 Fla. 499, 152 So. 180 ... ...
-
Horne v. City of Ocala
...lawfully resist the issuance of a writ of assistance, citing Hair v. Commercial Bank of Live Oak, supra, wherein it is said that [112 Fla. 499, 152 So. 181]: 'The power to issue a of assistance is predicated upon the principle that the jurisdiction of a court of equity to enforce its decree......
-
Dixon v. Dixon
... ... This ... Court has previously said in the case of Hair v ... Commercial Bank of Live Oak, 112 Fla. 499, 152 So. 180, ... 181, ... ...