R. E. COOGAN AND C. V. BAUMGARDNER, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF AUTOGRAM SERVICE, APPELLANTS,
v.
M. BURLEY, 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 decree enforcing the specific performance of an option to purchase land, holding that the chancellor's findings, supported by substantial evidence, would not be disturbed on appeal due to conflicting testimony.
No, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of the chancellor in an equity case with conflicting evidence if the essential findings are supported by substantial evidence.
“In an equity ease where the rights and equities as alleged depend upon the weight and probative force to be given and applied to conflicting testimony, the finding of the Chancellor on such testimony, and' the decree which he shall have entered, upon such findings, will not be disturbed on appeal, unless it is clearly shown to be wrong!”
Establishes the standard of review for findings of fact in equity cases with conflicting evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants sought specific performance of an option to purchase land from the appellee. The case involved conflicting evidence regarding the rights an…
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 Specific Performance cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
In this case Bill was filed to enforce the specific performance of option under which the appellants claimed the right to purchase and to have conveyed to them from the appellee certain lands. There are thirteen (13)^ Assignments of Error, each of which is addressed to the findings of the Chancellor as obtained in the final decree.
It is not needful for us to say that we concur in each and every of the findings of the Chancellor. All the stated findings of the Chancellor were not essential to constitute the basis of the final decree which was entered.
The evidence is conflicting.
In an equity ease where the rights and equities as alleged depend upon the weight and probative force to be given and applied to conflicting testimony, the finding of the Chancellor on such testimony, and' the decree which he shall have entered, upon such findings, will not be disturbed on appeal, unless it is clearly shown to be wrong! Wimbish v. Douglas, et al, Fla., opinion filed July 12, 1926, 109 Sou. 306, and cases there cited. In this case the essential findings of the Chancellor are supported by some substantial evidence and the decree should.be affirmed upon authority of the opinion in the case of Wimbish v. Douglas et al., supra, and cases there cited.
It is-so ordered..
Affirmed.
Brown, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Strum and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Koger v. Hollahan, 144 Fla. 779 (Fla. 1940)…misconduct “shall in all cases be solely for the jury,” we take it that it is within the province of the court to determine whether or not the facts alleged, if proven, would constitute gross negligence (City of Jacksonville v. Vaughn, 92 Fla. 339, 110 So. 529), and it is with this rule in mind that we examine the pleading to determine whether or not it should have withstood the attack made upon it by demurrer. It has been decided by this Court in Winthrop v. Carinhas, 142 Fla. 588, 195 So. 399, that beca…
-
Renuart Lumber Yards v. Levine, 49 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1950)…inspection of the entire record we become convinced the amount awarded by the jury was grossly excessive, I am not constrained to reverse the judgment. Dunn Bus Service v. Wise, 140 Fla. 341, 191 So. 509; City of Jacksonville v. Vaughn, 92 Fla. 339, 110 So. 529; Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Callan, 73 Fla. 688, 74 So. 799. Appellant contends that because the jury came back into the court room after it had been charged and had retired for its deliberations and asked the Court if there had been an attempted…
-
Kinya v. Lifter, Inc., 489 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…ully supported by the evidence and the law. Therefore, the verdict may not be reversed for the trial court’s failure to give a concurring negligence instruction, even if it might have properly been given. City of Jacksonville v. Vaughn, 92 Fla. 339, 110 So. 529 (1926); Karp v. Hodor, 166 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Maistrosky v. Harvey, 133 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961). This issue was also never reached by the jury because of the verdict finding no negligence on the part of the defendant. Under Florid…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence