69 Fla. 49 | Fla. | 1915
This appeal is from decrees adjudging the equities to be tvith the complainants and barring the equities of the defendants, and decreeing a sale and distribution in a suit to enforce an alleged mortgage lien.
The appellees have no greater right to a lien than the original mortgagee, W. H. H. Styles had. If the conveyance in 1902 by Styles to his wife carried to her the beneficial interest as well as the legal title, and such beneficial title has not passed from Mrs. Styles or her heirs, the lien claimed by the appellee does not exclude the minor heirs of Mrs. Styles, even if the husband has disposed of his interest. If W. H. H. Styles was a co-tenant with his minor childdren as heirs of the wife and mother, ..the judicial sale to W. H. H. Styles for the amount of unpaid taxes, does not of itself exclude the other co-tenants, the minor children, from participating
The bill of complaint does not make Bianco, the original mortgagor, a party, and does not allege that Bianco, the original mortgagor, had title to the property. There is an allegation that in the deed of conveyance from Bianco to Btobridge “was a clause to the effect that said conveyance was made subject to the mortgage.” The copy of the conveyance from Bianco to Burbridge made an exhibit “to be taken as a part of the bill of complaint,” contains a clause that it is “understood and agreed that the grantee assumes the payment of the indebtedness,” but such assumption of the debt by Burbridge is not alleged. Under the allegations of the bill, a personal decree against William Burbridge and his wife for the debt is- not Avarranted, even though on proper allegations and proofs the Hen upon the land might be enforced adversely to Burbridge and his wife. .
Reversed.