Hemphill v. Pesat, (1929)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 12
Judges: ELLIS, J. —
Attorneys: Shepard Wahl, for Appellants;
James T. Vocelle and Chas. A. Mitchell, for Appellees.
Filed: Jul. 10, 1929
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This is an appeal from an order denying a petition to stay the sale of lands under a decree of foreclosure. The facts are as follows: R. J. Hemphill and his wife Reba were indebted to Adolph Pesat and William Hillebrand in the sum of twenty thousand dollars evidenced by three promissory notes in the sum of $6,666.66 each. The notes were dated June 17, 1925, and payable respectively on the 17th of June, 1926, 1927, and 1928. The debtors executed a mortgage upon certain lands to secure the payment
Summary: This is an appeal from an order denying a petition to stay the sale of lands under a decree of foreclosure. The facts are as follows: R. J. Hemphill and his wife Reba were indebted to Adolph Pesat and William Hillebrand in the sum of twenty thousand dollars evidenced by three promissory notes in the sum of $6,666.66 each. The notes were dated June 17, 1925, and payable respectively on the 17th of June, 1926, 1927, and 1928. The debtors executed a mortgage upon certain lands to secure the payment ..
More
It seems to me that the result of the majority opinion and judgment is to revise the contract
made by the parties, who were sui juris and who contracted voluntarily and dealt at arms length. The contract as construed by the majority is a much more fair and equitable contract, it is to be admitted, than that apparently intended by the parties, but is none the less a departure, in my judgment, from the contract as made. Moreover, it does not appear that the sums paid by the defendants exceeded a fair sum to justly compensate complainants in damages for their forbearance in executing the decree of sale, so as to render such payments objectionable as a penalty.
Source: CourtListener
