Legal Opinion

Winchester v. Hak

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided December 7, 1929PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWhitfield, P. J.

This is an action by the payee against the maker of a note, Avhich note contains the folloAving:

“On or before May 20, 1928, after date promise to pay to the order of Anton Hak, Jr., at Central National Bank and Trust Company, St. Petersburg, Fla., Nine Hundred and 00/000 Dollars (900.00) for value receiA^ed, Avith interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum from date until paid. Including attorneys fees and all costs if collected by an Attorney, or by suit. This note is secured by pledge of the securities mentioned on the reverse hereof, delivered with this note, as collateral security.”…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Blount Bros. Realty Co. v. EilenbergerSupreme Court of Florida · 1929
  2. First National Bank v. UlmerSupreme Court of Florida · 1913
  3. Ulmer v. First National BankSupreme Court of Florida · 1911
  4. Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. ChesserSupreme Court of Florida · 1918
  5. Hammers v. Southern Express Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1920

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Realty Bond & Share Co. v. EnglarSupreme Court of Florida · 1932
  2. Sarasota Publishing Co. v. E. C. Palmer & Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1931
  3. Reid v. MerrellSupreme Court of Florida · 1930

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API