New York Life Ins. Co. v. Oates
Decision Date | 05 April 1935 |
Citation | 166 So. 269,122 Fla. 540 |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Parties | NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. v. OATES et ux. |
On Rehearing Jan. 13, 1936.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 5, 1936.
On Motion for Additional Directions March 9, 1936.
Suit by the New York Life Insurance Company against A. Y. Oates and wife. From an adverse decree, complainant appeals.
Reversed and cause remanded, with directions.
See also, 113 Fla. 678, 152 So. 671.
On Motion for Additional Directions. Appeal from Circuit Court, Polk County; H. C. Petteway, judge.
Bradford G. Williams and Richard M. Naylor, both of Lakeland, and Raymond D. Knight, Henry P. Adair, John M. McNatt, and Knight, Adair, Cooper & Osborne, all of Jacksonville, for appellant.
Ira C. Hopper, of Lakeland, and B. K. Roberts, H. H. Wells, and William K. Whitfield, all of Tallahassee, for appellees.
In this cause Mr. Chief Justice WHITFIELD, Mr. Justice TERRELL, and Mr. Justice DAVIS are of the opinion that the decree of the circuit court should be reversed for further appropriate proceedings, while Mr. Justice ELLIS, Mr. Justice BROWN, and Mr. Justice BUFORD are of the opinion that the decree should be affirmed. When, the members of the Supreme Court sitting six members in a body and after full consultation, it appears that the members of the court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to whether the decree should be affirmed or reversed, and there is no prospect of an immediate change in the personnel of the court, the decree should be affirmed. Therefore it is considered, ordered, and adjudged under the authority of State ex rel. Hampton v McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 So. 51, that the decree of the circuit court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.
Affirmed.
Statement.
On March 20, 1930, the original bill of complaint in a foreclosure suit was filed by the New York Life Insurance Company, a corporation, against A. Y. Oates and his wife, Almena Oates. On April 5, 1930, prior to the appearance day, an amended bill of complaint was filed. By leave of court on June 18, 1930, a second amended bill of complaint was filed, in which it is in effect alleged that on or about June 1, 1926, A. Y. Oates and his wife, Almena Oates, executed to Telfair Stockton Company, a corporation, their promissory note payable to the order of the corporation in semiannual installments, with interest at 6 1/2 per cent. per annum during a period of five years, with provisions for accelerating the maturity of the note for defaults of the makers. That on or about June 1, 1926, A. Y. Oates and his wife Almena Oates, to secure the note given by them, executed to Telfair Stockton Company a mortgage instrument duly witnessed and acknowledged and recorded. That on or about June 22, 1926, the Telfair Stockton Company, for valuable consideration, duly assigned and transferred the note and mortgage to New York Life Insurance Company, a corporation.
That complainant 'paid for and accepted delivery of said note, mortgage and assignment without any notice or knowledge of any defect or irregularity in the transaction between said Telfair Stockton & Company and these defendants and each of them, and without notice or knowledge of any defect or irregularity in the execution of said note or of said mortgage, if any irregularity or defect there was, and that your orator is the present bona fide owner and holder for value of said mortgage deed, together with the note thereby secured, and all moneys due or to become due thereon, and that the same were purchased before maturity and before default of any kind or character in the payment of any of the obligations evidenced by said note and secured by said mortgage. * * *
'That the defendants filed an Answer to the original Bill of Complaint herein wherein and whereby they admitted that they signed the Note and Mortgage referred to therein and in this Second Amended Bill of Complaint, and that the defendant, A. Y. Oates, received the proceeds of the said Note and paid the amounts alleged in the Bill of Complaint herein to have been paid thereon, but they asserted in said Answer that the defendant, Almena Oates, did not know that the said Mortgage covered the land involved in this suit; that the Note and Mortgage were signed in the presence of the defendant, A. Y. Oates, only, and that neither of the witnesses who signed said mortgage was present when the said Almena Oates signed the same, and that the said Almena Oates did not appear before the Notary Public whose certificate is attached to said Mortgage and did not acknowledge said instrument in the presence of the Notary at the time she signed the same or at any other time; that she did not know of the existence of said Mortgage on the land involved in this suit until many months after June 1st, 1926; that she received no part of the proceeds of said Note and Mortgage, wherefore the defendants claim in their said Answer that the Mortgage involved in this suit was and is void and of no force and effect.
The copy of the mortgage attached to and made a part of the bill of complaint shows the execution and certificate of acknowledgment of the mortgage to be as follows:
'State of Florida, County of Polk.
'Before me personally appeared A. Y. Oates and Almena Oates, his wife, both of whom are to me well known, and known to me to be the individuals described in and who executed the foregoing mortgage, and acknowledged to and before me that they executed said mortgage for the purpose therein expressed; and the said Almena Oates, well known to me and known to me to be the wife of said A. Y. Oates, upon a separate and private examination, taken and made separately and apart from her said husband, acknowledged before me that she executed said instrument freely and voluntarily, without any compulsion, constraint, apprehension or fear of or from her said husband, for the purposes herein set forth.
'Witness my hand and official seal, this 1st day of June, 1926.
'[Notarial Seal] Leone C. McGowan
'Notary Public for the State of Florida at Large.
'My Commission expires Dec. 15, 1929.'
By answer:
'The Defendants admit that the said Almena Oates never made known to Telfair Stockton & Company or to the Complainant her claims or representations as to the lack or failure of consideration or her lack of knowledge that the said mortgage...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Oates
...318, 59 So. 944. First Nat. Bank v. Ashmead, 33 Fla. 416, 14 So. 886.' New York Life Ins. Co. v. Oates, 122 Fla. 540, text page 559, 166 So. 269, 276. the facts of the particular case warrant it, the doctrine of estoppel may be applied to married women with reference to conveyances of their......
-
Central Bank and Trust Co. v. General Finance Corp.
...also United States Casualty Co. v. Godwin, 158 Fla. 64, 27 So.2d 612; Steen v. Scott, 144 Fla. 702, 198 So. 489; New York Life Insurance Co. v. Oates, 122 Fla. 540, 166 So. 269. No act done or words spoken by GFC estop it from the retention of the payments which it has In considering whethe......
-
Oates v. New York Life Ins. Co.
...such as have already been set forth in our previous opinions and in our mandate. Therefore the motion for same is denied.' New York Life Ins. Co. v. Oates, supra. It be observed from that order that the court merely stated that the chancellor 'is bound to follow and apply the applicable rul......
-
County of Brevard v. Miorelli Engineering, Inc.
...estoppel may be applied against the sovereign in limited circumstances, when justified by the facts. 6 In New York Life Ins. Co. v. Oates, 122 Fla. 540, 166 So. 269 (1935), this Court stated that "[t]he technicalities incident to estoppels (especially in pais) are gradually giving way to co......