Dickson v. Humpfer, (1933)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 15
Judges: PER CURIAM. —
Attorneys: Clark W. Jennings, for Plaintiff in Error;
Pleus, Williams Pleus, for Defendant in Error.
Filed: Jul. 28, 1933
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is her
Summary: This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is here..
More
When suing upon a promissory note, upon its face barred by the statute of limitations, but as which the defendant, before the bar of the statute became complete, made a part payment of principal or interest, the plaintiff may declare upon the original note as the real cause of action. Vinson v. Palmer, 45 Fla. 631, 34 Sou. Rep. 276. I therefore concur in the per curiam order of affirmance prepared by Division B of this Court.
Source: CourtListener
