Judges: PER CURIAM.
Attorneys: E.W. R.C. Davis, for Appellant;
Green West, for Appellee.
Filed: Mar. 20, 1935
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Appellant here was complainant in the court below and exhibited a bill of complaint seeking to have cancelled a certain purported deed, which deed purported to *Page 116 convey the interest of the complainant, Winifred Alma McDonald, a married woman, in and to certain property therein described to McDonald Holding Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, it being alleged that the property in which the interest was purported to have been conveyed w
Summary: Appellant here was complainant in the court below and exhibited a bill of complaint seeking to have cancelled a certain purported deed, which deed purported to *Page 116 convey the interest of the complainant, Winifred Alma McDonald, a married woman, in and to certain property therein described to McDonald Holding Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, it being alleged that the property in which the interest was purported to have been conveyed wa..
More
I agree with the conclusion reached by the Court that the deed should be cancelled because of the fact established by the evidence that Mrs. McDonald did not appear before the notarial officer for the purpose of making acknowledgment of the execution of the deed.
I adhere to the views expressed by me in the case of Helland v. Evans, 113 Fla. 839, 152 South. Rep. 623, and the views expressed by me in my dissenting opinion in the case of M.A. Smith, as Liquidator of the Bank of Wauchula v. McEwen and wife, 119 Fla. 588, 161 So. 2d 68. See also Flowers v. Schenck, 110 Fla. 256, 148 South. Rep. 581, in which I said that the plea so far as its averments were concerned, set up a good defense, but because the rule requiring verification and certificate of counsel was ignored the plea should not have been permitted to stay in the record.
ON REHEARING GRANTED
