TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Morris Et Ux. v. Shepard

Dan Morris and Wife, Carrie B. Morris, Joined by Her Husband, Dan Morris, Appellants, vs. Guy B. Shepard, Liquidator of the American Bank & Trust Company, Appellee

Morris Et Ux. v. Shepard, 139 So. 189 (Fla. 1932)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Florida · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 27, 1932
Judges
Buford
Citations
139 So. 189104 Fla. 121

Opinion of the Court — Buford

Buford, C.J.

—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 R. G. S., 5676 C. G. L. 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 vs. Hardin, 95 Fla. 889 , 116 Sou. 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.

Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.

■Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1933: 11935: 31937: 11939: 119332026peak 1935 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Oates v. New York Life Insurance178 So. 570 (Fla. 1937)
  2. McEwen and McEwen v. Schenck146 So. 839 (Fla. 1933)
  3. New York Liff Insurance Co. v. Oates, Et Ux.192 So. 637 (Fla. 1939)
  4. Smith v. McEwen, Et Ux.161 So. 68 (Fla. 1935)
  5. New York Life Insurance v. Oates166 So. 269 (Fla. 1935)
  6. Rowray v. Casper Mut. Building & Loan Ass'n45 P.2d 7 (Wyo. 1935)

Most recent

  1. New York Liff Insurance Co. v. Oates, Et Ux.192 So. 637 (Fla. 1939)
  2. Oates v. New York Life Insurance178 So. 570 (Fla. 1937)
  3. Rowray v. Casper Mut. Building & Loan Ass'n45 P.2d 7 (Wyo. 1935)
  4. New York Life Insurance v. Oates166 So. 269 (Fla. 1935)
  5. Smith v. McEwen, Et Ux.161 So. 68 (Fla. 1935)
  6. McEwen and McEwen v. Schenck146 So. 839 (Fla. 1933)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Herald v. Hardin, 116 So. 863 (Fla. 1928) 40

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list