The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1892-02-20

drsd and ninsty Ssssoe the east eadoe ID
dock ON the Indian River'at Titasville, On
which dock was located the railroad track
and terminal facility Of laid railroad CON-
pany, and said railroad company cove
nanted and agreed in said lease to main
tain the railroad track on said dock and
bulkhead and the irestle supporting said
track, and to furnish proper and adequate
facilities for transfer Of local freight to and
from said bulkhead: Hold, on this state
of facts the said steamboat company was
not entitled to an Injunction to restrain
another steamboat company from landing
at said railroad dock for the purpose OF
delivering and receiving freight to and fro
| from said railroad company.
8. The bill asked for an Injunction TO re.
strain respondents from using the dock at
Titusville and the premises appurtenant
| thereto as their headquarters and offices.
and from using and occupying numerous
other docks of complainant at other points
on Indian river, and also that complainant
be decreed the undisturbed possession OF
the same. A preliminary Injunction was
granted as to the dock at Titusville only.
Respondents, upon the filing of the bill,
answered rendering an issue as to the docks
other than at Titusville, and denied that
they landed at the Titusville dock other.
wise than for the purpose of delivering and
receiving freight to and from said railroad
company: Held, that while the decree of
the court dissolving the temporary injunc-
ton on bill and answer was proper. il was
error to dismiss the bill, as it cannot be said
that no other relief was sought except to
restrain respondents from landing their
boats at the Titusville dock.
Decree reversed in part.
Hamlin & Stewart, for appellant; Rob
bins & Graham, for appellee.
appellants, Va. Reginald Fry, appellee
Clay county
MABRY, j.:
/. To a bill filed to foreclose a mort
gage for purchase money due on real estate
the mortgagor in undisturbed possession
under warranty deed from the
mortgage with covenant that said real
estate is not encountered by any mortgage,
set up as a defense an outstanding
encumbrance or title, in the absence Of
any allegation of an eviction, actual or
constructive from the premises, or fraud,
or insolvency, on the part of the mort
gage.
2. It is error to decree a personal
direct an execution to issue generally
against her properly for such deficiency
of decree as many exist after the sale
of mortgaged property in foreclosure
proceedings.
8. When reference is made to
master 10 ascertain fact depending upon
testimony, his report should show the
basis of his finding, so that the court
may see the correctness of his conclu-
sions, and decree for solicitors fees,
predicated upon the report OF master, in
the absence Of any testimony TO show
what was a proper fee under the circum-
stances of the case, introduced either be-
fore the master or otherwise appealing
in the record, will be set aside.
4. In foreclosure proceedings, though
not under default, there is no rule of
practice making it compulsory on chan
cellor to refer cause to master to as
certain the amount Of principal and inter-
est due on note, or what is the reason
able att 0rney fee 10 be allowed in case.
These are matters Of mere computation,
or Of ready aScertainment, that can usu-
ally be made and established under the
of the chancellor without in
terfering with his public duties; but if, in
a case not under default, a chancellor,
after adjudicating the equities between
the parties, refer it to master for his
report, the proceedings before him are
regulated and controlled by the rules of
practice prescribed in such cases.
Decree reversed.
Thos. E. Wilson, for appellant; c. P. &
J. c. Cooper, for appellee.
Mary NJ. Sumner, appellant, vs.. Reuben
s. Mitchell appellee-Marion county.
RANEY G. j.:
/. In 1865 the laws of this state did not
authorize the admission to record of a |
deed acknowledged out of this state, but |