J. J. AMOTT, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
SIDNEY I. NEY 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 appellate court affirmed a lower court's decision to deny specific performance of a real estate contract, finding substantial evidence supported the chancellor's ruling. The plaintiff appealed, arguing the decree was against the manifest weight of the evidence, but failed to demonstrate reversible error.
No, the lower court did not err. There was substantial evidence supporting the chancellor's conclusion, and the appellant failed to demonstrate reversible error.
“The pivotal point on appeal challenges the correctness of the decree on the ground that it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and justice of the cause.”
This quote identifies the central legal argument made 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 intelligenceThe plaintiff (appellant) sued for specific performance of a contract to sell realty. The lower court found the equities favored the defendant (appell…
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 Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff has appealed a final decree rendered in a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell realty in which the equities of the cause are found to he in favor of defendant, specific performance denied, and the cause dismissed at the cost of plaintiff.
The cause has been orally argued before the court and the briefs and record on appeal have been read and given full consideration. The pivotal point on appeal challenges the correctness of the decree on the ground that it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and justice of the cause. We have carefully reviewed the record in light of the contentions of the respective parties and find substantial evidence which, when considered in a light most favorable to appellees, is sufficient to support the conclusion reached by the chancellor in the exercise of his lawful discretion. Appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the decree appealed is affirmed. See Bliss v. Hallock, (Fla.App.1959) 113 So.2d 889; Topper v. Alcazar Operating Co., 160 Fla. 421, 35 So.2d 392; Witham v. Shepard, 84 Fla. 75, 92 So. 685.
WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SACK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fortuna Interian v. Patterson, 260 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Amott v. Ney, Fla.App. 1966, 189 So. 2d 379; cf. Quest v. Barge, Fla.1949, 41 So. 2d 158.…
Authorities Cited
- Topper v. Alcazar Operating Co., 160 Fla. 421 (Fla. 1948)
- Bliss v. Robert M. Hallock and his wife, 113 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Witham v. Shepard, 84 Fla. 75 (Fla. 1922)