WEAVER-LOUGHRIDGE LUMBER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
J. HAM KIRKLAND ET UX., 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 decision dismissing a bill of complaint seeking to cancel a conveyance due to fraud, holding that the chancellor's findings of fact were supported by ample evidence and not clearly erroneous.
No, the chancellor's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous. There was ample evidence to sustain the decree.
“Bill of Complaint' was filed seeking to cancel and have declared null and void a certain conveyance on the ground of fraud.”
Describes the initial action filed by 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 intelligenceA bill of complaint was filed to cancel a conveyance based on fraud. The defendants filed an answer, and testimony was taken before a master. The chan…
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 Chancellor's Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Bill of Complaint' was filed seeking to cancel and have declared null and void a certain conveyance on the ground of fraud. Answer was filed and testimony taken before a master. The chancellor found in favor of the defendants and dismissed the bill.
Questions of fact only are presented by the assignments of error. There is ample evidence to sustain the decree and the case is well within the familiar principle that the findings of the chancellor on the facts will not' be disturbed by an appellate court unless such findings are clearly shown to be erroneous. Kreher v. Morley, 84 Fla. 121, 92 So. R. 686; Smith v. Dowling 81 Fla. 867, 89 So. R. 315; Travis v. Travis, 81 Fla. 309, 87 So. R. 762; Commercial Bank of Ocala v. First National Bank, 80 Fla. 685, 87 So. R. 315; Hill v. Beacham, 79 Fla. 430, 85 So. R. 147. Greenblatt v. Bissell Dry Goods Co., 85 Fla. 82, 95 So. R. 302; Edney v. Stinson, 90 Fla. 335, 105 So. R. 821; Birgess v. Wirt, 91 Fla. 425, 108 So. R. 169; Lluis v. Lluis, 91 Fla. 706, 108 So. R. 671.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gardiner v. Goertner, 110 Fla. 377 (Fla. 1932)…So. 229; Jordon v. Jordan, 100 Fla. 1576, 132 So. 466; Farrington v. Harrison, 95 Fla. 769; 116 So. 497; Cramer v. Eichelberger, 96 Fla. 683, 118 So. 737; Shipley-Young Co. v. Young, 97 Fla. 46, 119 So. 522; Weaver-Loughridge Lbr. Co. v., Kirkland, 99 Fla. 426, 131 So. 784; Hancoy Holding Co. v. Lambright, 101 Fla. 128, 133 So. 631; Turnipseed v. Brown, 102 Fla. 542; 136 So. 343 and other Florida cases. Taking into consideration the age and physical condition of testator, the fact that he was a very sick…
-
Turnipseed v. Brown, 102 Fla. 542 (Fla. 1931)…and the case is well within the familiar principle that the findings of the chancellor on the facts will not be disturbed by an appellate court unless such findings are clearly shown to be erroneous.” Weaver Loughridge Lbr. Co. vs. Kirkland et ux. 99 Fla. 426, 131 Sou. 784; Carr vs. Lesley, 73 Fla. 233, 74 Sou. 207; Cobb vs. Cobb, 82 Fla. 287, 89 Sou. 869; Heinisch et ux. vs. Mills et al., 100 Fla. 967, 132 Sou. 109. The decree should be affirmed and it is so ordered. Affirmed. Ellis and Brown, J.J.,…
-
White Furniture Co. v. Mather, 154 Fla. 129 (Fla. 1943)…a jury, the conclusions of the chan [*131] cellor on testimony so taken may not he reversed, unless it clearly appears that he has erred in such conclusions. Lluis v. Lluis, 91 Fla. 706, 108 So. 671; Weaver-Loughridge Lumber Co. v. Kirkland, et ux., 99 Fla. 426, 131 So. 784. There is ample evidence to sustain the decree. This court is unable to say that the appellant has sustained the burden of proof cast upon him by the pleadings. The decree, therefore, should be affirmed. It is so ordered. BUFORD, C.J…
Authorities Cited
- Travis v. Sim Travis, 81 Fla. 309 (Fla. 1921)
- The Commercial Bank of Ocala v. The First Nat'l Bank of Gainesville, 80 Fla. 685 (Fla. 1920)
- Hill v. Braxton Beacham and Berta Beacham, 79 Fla. 430 (Fla. 1920)
- Smith v. Dowling, 81 Fla. 867 (Fla. 1921)
- Edney v. Stinson, 90 Fla. 335 (Fla. 1925)
- Kreher v. Morley, 84 Fla. 121 (Fla. 1922)
- Burgess v. Erle L. Wirt, 91 Fla. 425 (Fla. 1926)
- Kirkland v. Hutto, 85 Fla. 82 (Fla. 1923)
- Lluis v. Lluis, 91 Fla. 706 (Fla. 1926)