Robinson v. Pepper
| Decision Date | 04 January 1928 |
| Citation | 116 So. 4,94 Fla. 1184 |
| Parties | ROBINSON et al. v. PEPPER et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Suit by W. M. Pepper and another as receivers of the Florida Bank & Trust Company against J. L. Robinson, Mrs. E. S. Gaulden, and others to remove a cloud from title. Decree for complainants. Subsequent to the decree, defendant E. S. Gaulden died, and defendant Lois M. Gaulden was appointed his administratrix. From the decree, defendant J. L. Robinson and others appeal.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Final decree will not be reversed, where supported by preponderance of evidence and based on sufficient pleadings. A final decree will not be reversed, where it is supported by a preponderance of the evidence when the pleadings upon which final decree is based are sufficient.
Admissions against interest are competent evidence; admissions against interest not rebutted, though opportunity was given, should be given due weight and consideration both in equity and at law; evidence of admissions by grantee that land had been conveyed to secure loan which had been paid held to support decree for grantor's creditors suing to remove cloud from title. Admissions against interest are competent evidence. Where the opportunity is available and offered to rebut proof offered as to admissions against interest, and such admissions are not rebutted, they are to be given due weight and consideration both in courts of law and equity.
Where complainant's material allegations are supported by admissions in pleadings and by competent testimony, final decree based thereon will not be disturbed. Where no other errors are made to appear, and the material allegation of the bill of complaint are supported, in part by admissions in the pleadings, in part by competent testimony other than admissions against interest, and in part by unrebutted admissions against interest, a final decree based thereon will not be disturbed.
Appeal from circuit Court, Pinellas County Freeman P. Lane, judge.
Davis & Pepper, of Perry, for appellants.
E. G. Baxter and S. L. Scruggs, both of Gainesville, for appellees.
The appellees, W. M. Pepper and E. D. Turner, as receivers of and for the Florida Bank & Trust Company of Gainesville, Fla., filed in the circuit court for Pinellas county, Fla., their bill of complaint, in the nature of a creditor's bill to remove cloud from title, against J. L. Robinson and Mrs. J. L. Robinson, his wife, and against E. S. Gaulden and Mrs. E. S. Gaulden, his wife. Final decree was entered in favor of the complainants as receivers. Subsequent to the final decree, E. S. Gaulden died. J. L. Robinson and Mrs. J. L. Robinson, his wife, and Lois M. Gaulden (Mrs. E. S. Gaulden), in her own right, and as administratrix of the estate of E. S. Gaulden, deceased, appeal from said final decree.
The bill of complaint, in substance, alleges the insolvency of the Florida Bank & Trust Company, the closing of the bank, and the appointment and qualification of the receivers; alleges the assessment by the comptroller of the full amount of the statutory liability against the stockholders of the bank; that the defendant J. L. Robinson was a stockholder owning 20 shares of stock of the par value of $100 each; that he was notified and called on to pay this assessment, but that he declined to pay same; that suit was instituted by the receivers against J. L. Robinson in June, 1924, for the amount of said assessment; that on the 29th day of January, 1925, the receivers recovered judgment against the defendant J. L. Robinson in the sum of $2,180.24, principal and interest, and $15.02 for costs; that on the 31st day of January, 1925, a true and correct copy of the transcript of said judgment was recorded in the foreign judgment record of Pinellas county; that thereafter execution was issued out of the circuit court of Alachua county, Fla., on said judgment, and placed in the hands of the sheriff of Pinellas county, Fla., and that the said sheriff levied said execution on lands, to wit, lots 124 and 211 of Bronson and Dowell subdivision of St. Petersburg as the property of the defendant J. L. Robinson; that said sheriff, after advertisement, sold said lots on the first Monday in May, 1925, during the legal hours of sale; that the complainants, as receivers, purchased said lots, and that sheriff's deed was executed and delivered to the complainants as purchasers of said lots; that the complainants are now the owners and in possession of said lots.
The bill of complaint further alleges that the defendant J. L Robinson, joined by his wife, on the 23d day of June, 1925, after suit had been brought against him on his stock liability, pretended to deed the said lots of land to the defendant E. S. Gaulden; that the sale of said lots to Gaulden was fraudulent, and for the purpose of secreting said lands, and covering same up to defeat the complainants recovering on the judgment they afterwards secured. The bill further charged on advice and belief that E. S. Gaulden paid nothing of value for said lands, but that there was passed, as a mere...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State
...v. State, 378 So.2d 108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). In that case we said the defendant's admission was not hearsay, citing Robinson v. Pepper, 94 Fla. 1184, 116 So. 4 (1928). In Webb v. State, 392 So.2d 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), this court also sustained the revocation of a defendant's probation whe......
- Briggs v. Mann
-
Johnson v. State, 78-488
...1974). Contrary to this contention, a defendant's admission, as opposed to statements by third parties, is Not hearsay. Robinson v. Pepper, 94 Fla. 1184, 116 So. 4 (1928) and Jones, Consequently, we affirm the finding of the trial court that defendant violated condition (c) and reverse its ......
- Pelt v. State