From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Richards v. Samuel

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 22, 1966
184 So. 2d 516 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)

Opinion

No. 65-591.

March 22, 1966.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Ralph O. Cullen, J.

William A. Ingraham, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Feibelman, Friedman, Hyman Britton and Herbert Stettin, Miami, for appellee.

Before TILLMAN PEARSON, CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.


The appellant, defendant, contends that a judgment against him for the return of certain money of the appellee is erroneous. He does not urge that the money is not due the appellee, but maintains that the judgment was based upon an agreement to repay which is invalid under the law of the situs of the contract. See Mississippi Valley Trust Co. v. Begley, 298 Mo. 684, 252 S.W. 76 (1923). But cf., Weisert v. Bramman, 358 Mo. 636, 216 S.W.2d 430 (1948).

We hold that there is evidence to support the judgment for the admitted indebtedness, and that the judgment must be affirmed regardless of the validity of the subsequent agreement recognizing the debt. The judgment is affirmed upon the rule that an appellate court will not reverse a judgment where the record, considered as an entirety, shows that a just conclusion was reached. See Griffin v. Dothan Guano Co., 93 Fla. 1104, 113 So. 563 (1927).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Richards v. Samuel

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 22, 1966
184 So. 2d 516 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)
Case details for

Richards v. Samuel

Case Details

Full title:LEE C. RICHARDS, APPELLANT, v. MARY SAMUEL, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Mar 22, 1966

Citations

184 So. 2d 516 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)

Citing Cases

Lubarr v. Waldman

We have concluded therefrom that, notwithstanding the court's failure to consider the evidence in the light…