The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1891-11-07
SUPREME COURT OF ELoRuDA

SURMBME co URT OF FLORIDA
HeadnOtes to Decisions June Term
1891.
Geo. A. Logan, Appellant, vs.. Slade g.
Etheredge ct al, Appellees.-Jack
county.
RANEY, G. J.:F
l. A court Of equity will prevent, by in
junction, a mortgagor from impairing the
value of or destroying the property en-
braced in the mortgage lien, on which the
mortgage has right, by virtue of his
mortgage, to rely for the security OF his
debt.
2. When merchant, on the day after
the execution OF a mortgage on his stock
OF goods in favor of some OF his creditors,
| dlsDOses Of large amount of them to other
creditors in payment Of their debts, a court
OF equity is justified in enjoining him from
selling said goods otherwise than for cash,
and commanding him to pay the proceeds,
after deducting expenses Of sale, into the
| registry OF the court.
8. Ii the remedy by Injunction as above
proves to be Intellectual the court may ap-
point receiver to take charge of the goods
and dispose of them under its direction.
A. An agreement by the mortgage not
TO record mortgage Of personal property
tor twenty days after its execution is a
valid agreement between the parties to it,
but such mortgage is void as to creditors
and purchasers without notice whose rights
attach before it is recorded.
3. An instrument in writing, executed bv
y mortgage at the time OF the execution
to him OF mortgage Of personal property
not to record the same within twenty DAYS
and not then, II satisfactory payments were
made in the meantime, unless, in the opin-
ION OF the attorneys of the mortgage, it
was necessary to protect his interest, con.
strued to mean, that if for good couse the
attorneys OF the mortgage filed the mort
gage Tor record before the expiration of the
twenty days, the mortgagor not having up
to the time of recording made satisfactory
payments, such action on the part of the
attorneys, if necessary to protect the inter-
est OF the mortgage terminated the stipu-
lation not to record the mortgage at all, if
satisfactory payments were made.
8. The objection that a suit has been
brought prematurely, or before the expira-
ton OF days of grace, cannot be raised phi
marlly In an appellate court by defend
ant who has both demurred to the bill and
| answered without interposing such defense
Z. The insufticiency of the proof upon
which a chattel mortgage has been re-
corded cannot be, urged primarily in the
appellate court, where neither the demurrer,
nor the answer to the bill, present it,
.. A stipulation Tor the payment of at
torneys' fees does not avoid contract for
the payment Of money, of which it is a
part; nor is stipulation for the payment
OF reasonable amount as attorneys fees
illegal.
Decree affirmed.
John w. Malone and John H. McKinne,
for Appellant; Liddon s. Carer, for Ap-
pellees.
Alphonso Haworth ct al, Appellants, VS..
Fannie NJ. Norris ct al , Appellees-
Duval county.
RANEY, G. j.:
l. In civil actions, other than divorce
cases. as the law stood in this state after
the legislation of January 80, 1885 (Chap-
ter 1852 Of the statutes), and before the
act June 4, 1891 (Chapter 1929 of the
statutes), a husband WAS, on account of
the marital relation, not competent wit
ness either for or against his wife, but
the wife Was competent witness for or
against her husband 10 a case where he
UcSUlIF.
and the disqualification of the husband,
as such, to testify for or against his wife
did not of itself disqualify him from tes-
trying as to his own interest where they
were both parties, nor did such relation
dlsquallfy her from testifying as to her
interest in the case.
3. Neither father nor mother is dis
qualified by the parental relation as a
witness for or against SON.
3. Delivery to third party is essential
to an escrow.
4. Parol evidence is admissible to prove
that deed was never delivered to the
grantee, or that it came into his posses
sion accidentally or by mistake, or con-
trary to the intention of the parties, or
by fraud or otherwise illegally; but it is
not admissible to show that an actual de-
| livery to the grantee of deed absolute
upon it's face was made under any agree
ment that condition not expressed in
the deed should be performed, and that
the deed should not be operative until or
unless such condition should be perform.
ed; the reason OF such inadmissibility of
parOl evidence is that it's effect would be
| to contradict a written instrument abso-
Lutte upon its face by showing contrary to
its terms that it was not absolute but
conditional.
5. A bill in equity to remove a cloud
upon title to land cannot be sustained
when the evidence shows that the land
was at the time the bill was filed in the
possession of the party complained of and
claiming to hold under the deeds consti-
tuting the cloud. The remedy is at law
Decree affirmed.
G. P. & J. G. Cooper for appellants;
A. W. Cockrell & Son for appellees.
Cornelius Johns. Jr., Appellant, We. County
Commissioners of Orange County, Ap-
| pellees.-Orange county.
MABRY, j.:
l. The County Judge is the officer desig.
mated by statute to pass in the first instance
upon the rewards allowed by Chapter 378 I.
laws Of Florida, and until he has certified
l Tn, ho hx~ 81