Skip to main content
· 6/15/1889

Etheredge v. Barkley

Citations

  • 25 Fla. 814

Syllabus

<p>B.being indebted to S. & E., signed a p tpor agreeing that if S. tfe B. would extend the time iu which lie was to pay them the amount he was duo them upon a decree of the court, till a specified day, he would pay S. & E. interest on the decree at the rate of twelve por cent, por annum, instead of the legal rate, eight per cent; S. & E. did not accept the agreement, nor did they by any act show that they intended to accept it, but ordered the property of B. sold under the decree, unless lie paid the costs of the decree. B. paid the costs under protest, but did not pay the increased rate of interest on the decree. E., as surviving partner ofS. & E., then brought suit against B. on his agreement: Held, That as S. & E. did not accept or assent to the agreement so as to bind themselves thereby, and as they violated the agreement, if bound by it, B. was not liable upon the agreement.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • rejecting Skaggs, Wills, and Jasper, and noting that this Court has not yet rejected the focus of the investigation test but has implicitly done so by reaffirming custodial interrogation requirement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Mitchell

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.