DR. T. S. KENNEDY, APPELLANT,
v.
N. A. CAMPBELL (ALSO KNOWN AS NEIL A. CAMPBELL), AND MILDRED S. CAMPBELL, HIS WIFE, AND EDWIN V. CAMPBELL AND MRS. EDWIN V. CAMPBELL, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES

Fla. | 1932-04-14
104 Fla. 729 Florida Supreme Court (1932) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 140 So. 918
Cited by 8 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision, finding no error in the chancellor's factual findings in a case concerning a deed allegedly made in fraud of creditors.


Holding

No, the chancellor did not commit error in his findings of fact.


Key Quotes

“The appeal before us is froin a final decree in favor of the defendant in a chancery suit wherein the appellant was complainant in the court below and sought to procure the cancellation of a deed from Neil A. Campbell and his wife Mildred S. Campbell, conveying certain lands to the father of Neil A. Campbell, that is [*730] to Edwin V. Campbell, upon the ground that the conveyance was made in fraud of creditors.”

Describes the nature of the case and the relief sought 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 intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The appellant, as complainant, sought to cancel a deed from Neil A. Campbell and his wife to Edwin V. Campbell (Neil's father). The basis for cancella…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

—The appeal before us is froin a final decree in favor of the defendant in a chancery suit wherein the appellant was complainant in the court below and sought to procure the cancellation of a deed from Neil A. Campbell and his wife Mildred S. Campbell, conveying certain lands to the father of Neil A. Campbell, that is *730to Edwin V. Campbell, upon the ground that the conveyance was made in fraud of creditors.

The only question presented is whether or not it is made to appear that the chancellor committed error in his finding of facts in favor of the defendants.

The record discloses substantial evidence sustaining the chancellor’s findings and, therefore, the decree should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …the loss of support suffered by Bould. This does not mean that the recovery is limited to a present value of anticipated support which must be measured to a mathematical certainty. The rule is discussed in Cudahy Packing Co. v. Ellis, 105 Fla. 186, 140 So. 918 (1932): “The weight of authority supports the rule that more than ordinary discretion may be allowed the jury in assessing damages in actions for wrongful death. They are not limited to a consideration of the age and probable life expectancy of the…
  • Ellis v. Golconda Corp., 352 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
    …s income in 1973 and $3,866.00 gross income in 1974. There just is not any record basis for an award for loss of net accumulations of this prospective estate. A jury verdict must rest on real substance. Cudahy Packing Company v. Ellis, 105 Fla. 186, 140 So. 918 (1932). Sharon Notage, individually and as administratrix of Mrs. Notage’s estate, cross assigned as error the trial court’s granting of a remittitur as to the jury awards for loss of certain personal property. This remittitur reduced Sharon’s verd…
  • Erle L. Wirt v. Fraser, 158 Fla. 777 (Fla. 1947)
    …idered in the light of our former opinions. See Duval v. Hunt, 34 Fla. 85, 15 So. 876; F. C. & P. Ry. Co. v. Foxworth, 41 Fla. 1, 25 So. 338; The F. C. and P. R. R. Co. v. Foxworth, 45 Fla. 278, 34 So. 270; Cudahy Packing Co. v. Ellis, 105 Fla. 186, 140 So. 918. From the entire record we find no reason to relieve appellant from responding in damages to the widow of the man he has slain. It is a substantial sum to exact; however, this record could well be the subject of study and reflection for all who are…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw