Tyler v. Rudisill, (1934)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 7
Judges: PER CURIAM. —
Attorneys: Carr Carr Carr, for Plaintiff in Error;
James J. Jackson, for Defendant in Error.
Filed: Jan. 02, 1934
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
Rudisill never did pay Clawson the amount provided for in his contract of purchase. The Tylers were supposed to have succeeded to the title held by Crouch, Clawson's vendor. Rudisill paid the comparatively small balance due by Clawson to Crouch and took deed from Tyler to himself in his own name, but still owed Clawson a large balance on purchase price. See Bush v. Adams, 22 Fla. 177, and Latin-American Bank v. Rogers,87 Fla. 147.
Source: CourtListener
