Morris v. Shepard
| Decision Date | 27 January 1932 |
| Parties | MORRIS et ux. v. SHEPARD. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Suit by Guy B. Shepard, liquidator of the American Bank & Trust Company, against Dan Morris and wife. Decree for complainant, and defendants appeal.
Affirmed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Pinellas County; T. Frank Hobson, judge.
Lambdin & Ramseur, of St. Petersburg, for appellants.
H. W. Holland, H. L. Peterson, Laurence D. Childs, and Charles E. Fisher, all of St. Petersburg, for appellee.
This was a suit to foreclose a mortgage alleged to have been made, executed, and delivered by husband and wife. The defense interposed was in effect that the mortgage embraced homestead property and that the wife had not acknowledged the execution of the mortgage, as is required by section 3803, Rev. Gen. St. section 5676, Comp. Gen. Laws. The mortgage appears upon its face to have been regularly and legally executed and acknowledged. The chancellor found in favor of the complainants and rendered his decree accordingly, from which order appeal was taken.
The defendants both testified that the wife did not appear before the notary public and acknowledge the execution of the mortgage at the time at which she signed the same, or at any other time. A stipulation between counsel is to the effect that the notary public had no independent recollection of having taken the acknowledgment; that she attached certificates of acknowledgment to various papers executed by the defendants, some of which were acknowledged before her by the wife and others were not. There were no other witnesses called to testify in regard to the acknowledgment.
It appears that the chancellor in entering his decree followed the rule enunciated by this court in Herald v. Hardin. 95 Fla. 889, 116 So. 863, and cases there cited. Under the facts disclosed by the record the chancellor was warranted in so doing and the decree should be affirmed. It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Oates
...by convincing evidence. Hutchinson v. Stone, 79 Fla. 157, 84 So. 151; Randall v. Twitchell, 98 Fla. 559, 124 So. 21; Morris v. Shepard, 104 Fla. 121, 139 So. 189; Smith v. Hogan (Fla.) 157 So. 183; Suttle Wold (Fla.) 158 So. 447; Smith v. McEwen (Fla.) 161 So. 68, decided at this term. Wher......
-
Smith v. Mcewen
...often followed and applied in this jurisdiction. See Baylarian v. Tunnicliffe, 105 Fla. 484, 141 So. 609, 144 So. 844; Morris v. Shepard, 104 Fla. 121, 139 So. 189; Hart v. Sanderson's Adm'rs, 18 Fla. Shear v. Robinson, 18 Fla. 379; Rausch v. Equitable Life Assur. Society, 77 Fla. 846, 82 S......
-
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Oates
... ... Hutchinson v ... Stone, 79 Fla. 157, 84 So. 151; Randall v ... Twitchell, 98 Fla. 559, 124 So. 21; Morris v ... Shepard, 104 Fla. 121, 139 So. 189; Smith v ... Hogan [117 Fla. 82] 157 So. 183; Suttle v. Wold ... [117 Fla. 802] 158 So. 447; ... ...
-
Rowray v. Casper Mut. Building & Loan Ass'n., 1896
... ... on of transactions dealing with land so essential to the ... public welfare." ... The ... brief opinion of the court in Morris v. Shepard, 104 ... Fla. 121; 139 So. 189, is pertinent here, and reads: ... "This ... was a suit to foreclose a mortgage alleged to ... ...