Case ID: fla_102/html/0621-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam. Ellis, J., Brown, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Raymond C. Baker and Louise N. Baker, his wife, Appellants, v. R. H. Rowe, Appellee, Case No. 791.
    130 So. 278.
    En Banc.
    Decision filed October 16, 1930.
    
      Eldridge Harl, for Appellants.
    
      B. G. Horne, for Appellee.
   Per Curiam.

— This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decrees herein and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties and the record having been seen and inspected and the Court now being advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decrees. It is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decrees of the circuit court be, and the same are hereby affirmed.

Terrell, O.J., and Whitfield, Strum and Brown, J.J., concur.

Ellis and Bueord, J.J., dissent.

Ellis, J.,

Dissenting: — Rowe was not by the showing made in the bill holder of notes in due course, therefore he held them subject to equities set out in answer, which the court ignored in the decree. Also no proof that complainant agreed to pay Attorney’s fees.

Bueord, J., concurs.

Brown, J.

— The bill avers that the assignment was made to Rowe for a valuable consideration on July 15/26. The mortgage notes were dated April 30/26 and due 9 and 15 months after date. It seems however that Judge Ellis’s criticism that there was no proof that complainant- agreed to pay an Attorneys’ fee, is true, but the answer admits the allegations of the bill as to this.

See the case next following.