JOSEPH D'ESTERRE, APPELLANT,
v.
TRUST COMPANY OF GEORGIA AND ROBERT G. STEPHENS, AS TRUSTEES, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decree, finding no error in the application of estoppel to the appellant's conduct. The court found the appellant had not clearly demonstrated that the chancellor's ruling on estoppel was erroneous.
No, the Chancellor did not err. The appellant failed to clearly demonstrate that the application of estoppel to the facts was erroneous.
“In this case the Chancellor held that the conduct of the appellant operated as an estoppel to his right to the relief which was sought by him in this suit.”
Describes the lower court's finding of estoppel against the appellant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant sought relief in a suit, but the Chancellor found that the appellant's conduct operated as an estoppel to his right to that relief. The …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the Decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said Decree.
In this case the Chancellor held that the conduct of the appellant operated as an estoppel to his right to the relief which was sought by him in this suit. The appellant has not made it to clearly appear that the application by the Chancellor of the law of estoppel to the facts disclosed by the record was erroneous. It is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said Decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.
Buford, C.J., and Elms and Brown, J.J., concur.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Galloway v. Tompkins, 119 Fla. 689 (Fla. 1935)…88 Fla. 280, 102 South. Rep. 157; Farrell v. Forest Inv. Co., 73 Fla. 191, 74 South. Rep. 216, 1 A. L. R. 25; Turnipseed v. Brown, 102 Fla. 542, 136 South. Rep. 343; Lewter v. Price, 25 Fla. 574, 6 South. Rep. 439; D’Esterre v. Trust Co. of Georgia, 103 Fla. 1078, 139 South. Rep. 145. From an examination of the evidence we are unable to say that the Chancellor erred in his conclusions. So the decree is affirmed. Whitfield, C. J., and Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.…