The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1881-05-10
HEAD-NoTEs OF DECISIONS
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA.
Jamuary Termn. A. ID. 1881.


G. O. Livingston, W. C. P. Cooper, Executor,
&c.-Error to Circuit Court for Duval.
RANDALL, CD:
1. When party in cross examining witness
presses questions relating to collateral matters
not testified to in the direct examination, he
makes the witness his own as 10 the facts so
brought out.
2. Testimony of impressions and conclusions
drawn from conversation is of little value
against positive testimony giving the language
used
3. Proof OF the circumstances under which the
plaintiff, the indorser of q note, purchased il, in
order to let in evidence of the want of considera
ton between the original parties, must be such
as to necessarily create doubt of the good faith
or innocence of the plaintiff in purchasing IT,
4 Reputation that the payee Of note is
"coDjurer and fortune-teller," and proof that
probable consideration of the note was medicine
and nursing furnished to a sick man by the re-
puted conjurer and fortuncteller, is net evidence
that the note was given in consideration Of "con-
juring" &C, that the consideration was illegal.
Judgment reversed and new trial granted.
NJ. G. Jordan for Plaintiff in Error; c. p.
Cooper for Defendant in Error
Eliza E. Shear, Appellant, VS.. VIM. L. Robinson,
Appellee.
RANDALL, G. j.:
/. When married woman has appeared be-
fore magistrate, having signed deed and
acknowledged it, and he cerifes full compli-
ance with the statute, his certificate, except fraud
be shown, must be held conclusive OF the facts
1t asserts. agreeing with Hart vs. L'Engle ct
al. January Term, 1881
2. A conveyance of land and other property
in form are absolute deed of bargain and sale in
consideration OF an indebtedness secured by a
prior mortgage (held by the grantee who is in pos
nd q looa ol nd IF euh adv
ces, said deed being executed under circumstan-
ces inducing the grantor to believe that ii is in
tended as q security for the money named as the
consideration; and the prior mortgage being
fOreclosed by the grantee for the entire amount
named as the consideration of the deed, the
mortgagor, a married woman, consenting thereto,
and the prayer of the bill asking for decree of
sale, and that the proceeds Of the sale be applied
to pay the complainant the amount of money
named as the consideration of the deed and in
terest thereon, and the surplus if any, to be paid
to the grantors-such deed will be deemed a
mortgage.
8. A decree, procured by the complainant
under such foreclosure proceedings, which pro-
vides that the surplus on q sale of the premises
after paying the complainant the amount named
in the deed of conveyance is TO be paid to the
grantor or mortgagor is substantial evidence of
the character of the deed as security only.
L. Where a mortgage bid in property for q
much larger sum than the amount due by the
decree of sale, under the advice of counsel that
he would not be required to pay over any sur
plus to the mortgagor, and being advsedthat he
is entitled to retain such surplus because he is
already the owner of the property so sold, he is
not entitled TO be relieved from his bid on the
alleged ground that he acted under mistake of
fact, the misapprehenson being purely one of
law and not of fact.
5. A purchaser is not entitled TO be relieved of
his bid under such circumstances upon the addi-
tional ground that the property is worth much
less than he had bid, especially where another
responsible bidder offered $1,000 and the pur-
chaser bid $4,000
6. A paper purporting TO be release of the
complainant from the effects of his bid at q
mortgage SALE signed by the mortgagors, lamar
ried woman and her invalid husband,) and re-
leasing the purchaser from paying over the sur
plus to which the mortgagors are entitled by the
decree Of sale, the assent to such paper having
been obtained by the complainant by imposing
upon'their weakness and confidence, in the alb
sence of counsel advisers, is of effect 10
curtail or control their legal or equitable rights
so sought to be affected.
Compliments petition to be relieved of his
bid refused. Decree reversed
d. s. Walker, Jr. and f. M. Hopkins, Attor-
neys for Appellant; George p. Raney, Attorney
for Appellee.