Legal Opinion

759 Riverside Avenue, Inc. v. Marvin

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided April 18, 1933PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBuford, J.

The appellee .was complainant in the court, below in a suit to foreclose a mortgage. The defendant, 759 Riverside Avenue, Inc., a corporation, was' the mortgagor. Mamie M. Webster, the other defendant, held a third mortgage. The defendant corporation filed an amended answer, paragraph 11 of which was as follows:

“Further answering the entire amended bill as amended, this ■ 'defendant says that the complainant’s said mortgage is a1' part of one entire and indivisible contract which con-, tract -was both illegal and fraudulent, 'and that the com plainant is not entitled to be reproved by this…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. Erie & North-East RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1854
  2. West Br. Boom Co. v. Penn. Joint L. & L. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Pearson v. Probate CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
  2. SE VOLUSIA HOSP. DIST. v. State, Dept. of Ins.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983
  3. Sullivan v. Securities Investment Co. of Saint LouisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API