Braxton v. Liddon

Citations

• 55 Fla. 785

Syllabus

<p>1. Orders enlarging the time for taking testimony in equity causes are within the sound discretion of the judge, when special cause is shown,; and unless abuse of such discretion appears the appellate court will not interfere.</p> <p>2. The appellate court reviews the action of the trial judge on the report of a master in equity causes, and not the action of the master per se, therefore an assignment of error that “the master erred in the report which he made to the court” cannot be considered.</p> <p>3. Where an answer in a foreclosure proceeding is not excepted to, but the averments of the several paragraphs of the answer set up good affirmative defenses to the suit, such defenses may 'be established by proofs even though the answer contains matters that do not constitute a defense.</p> <p>4. In a suit to foreclose a lien upon crops for fertilizers an averment of the answer that the fertilizer did not compare with the guaranteed analysis required by' the statute is a good defense, but averments that the fertilizer injured the crops and land without reference to the failure of the fertilizer to comply with the guaranteed analysis, is not a good defense when the purchaser has by written agreement expressly relieved the vendor of liability for the fertilizer as to “its effects upon crops or otherwise.” Defenses growing out of the failure of the fertilizer to conform to the analysis required by the statute are not affected by agreements since such agreements are contrary to the policy of the statute and will not be enforced by the courts.</p> <p>5. In a proceeding to foreclose a lien upon crops for'fertilizers used on them where non-compliance with the guaranteed analysis and other defenses are set up and the finding “that the fertilizer was up to the guaranteed analysis’ ’ is sustained by the evidence, and the other defenses are not available because of an agreement affecting them, the decree of foreclosure will not be disturbed.</p>