Carson v. Farnham, (1935)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 8
Judges: BUFORD, J. —
Attorneys: Watt Lawler, for Appellant;
R. E. Kurtz, for Appellee.
Filed: Apr. 03, 1935
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: The appeal here is from an order sustaining motion to strike portions of an answer interposed to a bill of complaint in a suit to foreclose a mortgage on real estate. The portions of the answer which were stricken attempted to set up as a defense to the foreclosure of the mortgage the existence of both past and then present conditions of personal and general misfortune, hardships, calamities and depression which had resulted in the defendant becoming and remaining unable to perform her contract
Summary: The appeal here is from an order sustaining motion to strike portions of an answer interposed to a bill of complaint in a suit to foreclose a mortgage on real estate. The portions of the answer which were stricken attempted to set up as a defense to the foreclosure of the mortgage the existence of both past and then present conditions of personal and general misfortune, hardships, calamities and depression which had resulted in the defendant becoming and remaining unable to perform her contract a..
More
While I concur in most that is said in the majority opinion, I think that the court should not have stricken those portions of the answer referred to in the majority opinion, but should have retained them for consideration in connection with the matter of fixing the time of the foreclosure sale, for the reasons stated by me in my opinion in the case of Morris,et al., v. Waite, et al., on an appeal in a similar case from the same court, the Circuit Court of Lee County, decided during the present term.
Source: CourtListener
