Legal Opinion
Enstrom, Et Ux. v. Dunning
Supreme Court of Florida
Decided February 3, 1939PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Per curiam
— This is the second appearance of This case here. For its former appearance see Enstrom v. Dunning, 124 Fla. 571, 169 So. 385.
We decided in that case that the cause should be reversed and the statu'ory penalties for usury imposed, Secs. 6937-6939 C. G. L. On rehearing of the case, the question oE estoppel was considered and we said there:
“It is contended by the appellee that before appellee acquired the note and mortgage which is the subject of this suit, her representative interviewed the maker of the mortgage and note, Hugo C. Enstrom, and advised Mr. Enstrom that his client, Frances L.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Thacher v. DinsmoreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Bailey v. LumpkinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1846
- Bank of Columbia v. Attorney GeneralCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1829
- Hall v. HaleSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1831
- Hart v. PalmerNew York Supreme Court · 1834
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Jarrard v. Associates Discount CorporationSupreme Court of Florida · 1957
- General Capital Corporation v. Tel Service Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1968
- Capital Bank v. SchulerDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982
- I. S. Joseph Company, Inc., Plaintff-Appellant v. Citrus Feed Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
- Eliason v. Production Credit Association of AitkinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.