YAEGER-STUCKEY LIVE STOCK COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA PECAN ENDOWMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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 decision to dissolve a temporary injunction, finding that the appellant failed to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. The court declined to rule on the constitutionality of a legislative act as it was not necessary for the disposition of the case.
No, the lower court did not err in dissolving the injunction because the complainant failed to sustain the material allegations of their bill of complaint by a preponderance of the evidence.
“The finding of the court below was that “the complainant has not sustained the material allegations of his bill [*736] of complaint pnt in issue by the defendant’s answer by a preponderance of tbe evidence submitted.””
This quote states the basis of the lower court's decision, which was a failure of proof by the plaintiff.
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 an injunction to prevent the appellee from closing a gate that provided access from a plantation road to a public road. A tempora…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Review Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Browne, C. J.
— The appellant seeks by injucntion to restrain appellee from closing to the public a gate opening from a plantation road to a public road in Leon County. A temporary restraining order was granted, which, on final hearing, was dissolved and perpetual injunction refused.
The first assignment of error is that the “court erred in holding that the act of the Legislature of 1917, Chapter 7326, was unconstitutional and void.” This question although raised by the pleadings and discussed in the briefs was not decided by the court below, nor was its determination necessary to the proper disposition of the cause. We, therefore, do not pass on the question.
The finding of the court below was that “the complainant has not sustained the material allegations of his bill of complaint pnt in issue by the defendant’s answer by a preponderance of tbe evidence submitted.” The case was disposed of solely on the evidence. After a careful examination of the record, we cannot say that there was not ample evidence to support the finding of the chancellor. It is a well-settled rule that where the testimony is conflicting, but there is ample evidence to support the finding of the chancellor, the decree will not be reversed on the evidence. Sheppard v. Crowley, 61 Fla. 735, 55 South. Rep. 841; Alies v. Diaz, 62 Fla. 421, 57 South. Rep. 614; Gillett v. Beachman, 63 Fla. 438, 57 South. Rep. 615; Millinor v. Thornhill, 63 Fla. 531, 58 South. Rep. 34.
The decree is affirmed.
Taylor,. Whitfield, Ellis and West, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cleavey P. Sheppard v. Crowley, 61 Fla. 735 (Fla. 1911)
- Millinor v. Thornhill, 63 Fla. 531 (Fla. 1912)
- Antolin Alles v. Diaz, 62 Fla. 421 (Fla. 1911)
- Gillett v. Harrison T. Beachman, 63 Fla. 438 (Fla. 1912)