[DOWNLOAD] "Guggenheimer & Company v. W. M. Davidson" by Division A. Supreme Court of Florida # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

July 09, 2021

eBook details

Title: Guggenheimer & Company v. W. M. Davidson
Author : Division A. Supreme Court of Florida
Release Date : January 01, 1911
Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
Pages : * pages
Size : 62 KB

Description

WHITFIELD, C. J. -- The appellee, W. M. Davidson, brought a suit to foreclose a mortgage on real estate making the appellant and D. M. Davidson and wife and others defendants. The original bill of complaint alleges that the mortgage had been given by D. M. Davidson and wife to secure the payment of a debt, and that an unpaid portion of the mortgage debt had been assigned to appellee. An answer by Guggenheimer & Company sets up its right in the land to the exclusion of the complainant. The complainant then presented a petition to amend his bill of complaint ""by adding thereto various and sundry statements of facts which have come to the knowledge of your petitioner and his counsel since the filing of said bill and of the filing of the said answer thereto."" This petition was granted and the complainant filed an amended bill of complaint alleging in effect that the mortgage was given for the payment of the purchase price of the land mortgaged; that although the title to the land was taken in the name of his mother, the wife of D. M. Davidson, and the mortgage executed by his mother, the purchase was made by and for him, and that he had furnished all the money paid on the indebtedness, and that the unpaid notes had been assigned to him. It is not alleged that the defendant Guggenheimer & Company, who had answered claiming title by purchase at a execution sale against D. M. Davidson who was the owner of the land, took his execution deed with notice of complainant's alleged rights. The prayer is in effect to decree an equitable title in complainant. The defendant Guggenheimer & Company moved to strike this amended bill of complaint on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the original bill, and is beyond the scope of the petition granted for filing the amended bill. The motion to strike was denied, and the defendant appealed from this interlocutory order only.