H. H. MOCK, L. E. MOCK AND IRA A. HUTCHINSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
GREEN B. THOMPSON, 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.
In this equity case, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decree canceling two deeds and granting injunctive relief to the complainant Thompson against the appellants Mock and Hutchinson. The court found the trial judge's factual findings were amply supported by the voluminous testimony and declined to disturb them on appeal.
The court affirmed the trial court's decree, finding that no error had been made to appear and that the trial judge's findings were amply warranted by the testimony, refusing to disturb factual findings under the established appellate standard.
“Following the established practice in this court, we must refuse to disturb his findings.”
Establishes the appellate standard that factual findings by the trial court will not be overturned absent clear error.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe complainant Thompson filed a bill in equity seeking cancellation of two deeds he had executed to L. E. Mock, as well as a deed from the Mocks to I…
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 Conflicting Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Shackleford, J.
The appellee as complainant filed his bill in equity against the appellants as defendants in which he sought the cancellation of two certain deeds of conveyance purporting to have been executed by the complainant to Mrs.
L. E. Mock, one of the appellants, as well as the-cancellation of a certain deed of conveyance from Mrs.
L. E. Mock and her husband, H.
H. Mock, to Ira A. Hutchinson, their co-defendant, an injunction and general relief. A joint answer was filed by H.
H. Mock and L.
E. Mock and a separate answer by Ira A. Hutchinson denying practically all the material allegations in the bill. The two Mocks -also filed a cross-bill, to which the complainant filed an answer, general replications were filed and an order was made appointing a special master to take the testimony of the respective parties. Temporary injunctions or restraining orders were issued both against the defendants and the complainant. Voluminous testimony was taken before such special master and the cause came on for final hearing upon the pleadings and such testimony, at which hearing a final decree was rendered to the effect that all the equities were with the complainant, that he was entitled to the relief prayed, and that the defendants were not entitled to the relief sought by their cross bill. The temporary injunction against the complainant was dissolved and the temporary injunction against the defendants was made perpetual. The specific relief prayed by the complainant was granted and the costs ordered taxed against the defendants. Four errors are assigned, all of which are based upon and question the correctness of the final decree. The pleadings are quite lengthy and, as we have already said, the testimony taken is voluminous. We have carefully read the transcript of the record as well as the briefs of the respective counsel, and are of the opinion that no error has been made to appear to us. Practically no questions of law are presented to us. There is considerable conflict in the testimony, but the court below found in favor of the complainant, and, we, think, was amply warranted by the testimony in so doing. Following the established practice in this court, we must refuse to disturb his findings. See Lucra v. Wade, 43 Fla. 419, 31 South. Rep.
231. We see no useful purpose to be accomplished by undertaking to set forth a synopsis of the pleading or the testimony.
Decree affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Cockrell,, J., concur. Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (36 total)
-
Williams v. Bailey, 69 Fla. 225 (Fla. 1915)…he principles of the law which he evidently applied to those facts we think are sound and were correctly applied. Every presumption is in favor of the ruling of the trial judge. Guerra v. Guiterrez, 66 Fla. 570, 64 South. Rep. 232; Mock v. Thompson, 58 Fla. 477, 50 South. Rep. 673. The decree is affirmed. Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford, Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ., concur.…
-
Shad v. Smith, 74 Fla. 324 (Fla. 1917)…the chancellor, the decree will not be reversed on the evidence. Millinor v. Thornhill, [*328] 63 Fla. 531, 58 South. Rep. 34; Johns v. Bowden, 72 Fla. 530, 73 South. Rep. 603; Hogeboom v. Anderson, 70 Fla. 393, 70 South. Rep. 312; Mock v. Thompson, 58 Fla. 477, 50 South. Rep. 673. In Sections 1, 2 and 1, Article N of the State Constitution, it is provided that “A homestead to the extent of one hundred and sixty acres of land, or the half of one acre within the limits of any incorporated city or town, own…
-
City of Miami Beach v. The Tex. Co., 141 Fla. 616 (Fla. 1940)…conclusions of a chancellor on questions of fact will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. See Farrington v. Harrison, 95 Fla. 769, 116 So. 497; Atlantic Bank, etc., Co. v. Sengstak, 95 Fla. 606, 116 So. 267; Mock v. [*641] Thompson, 58 Fla. 477, 50 So. 673; Lucas v. Wade, 43 Fla. 419, 31 So. 231; Kent v. Knowles, 101 Fla. 1375, 133 So. 315, 317. We therefore hold Ordinance No. 446 constitutional and valid but the application of the ordinance to The Texas Company’s bulk plant would in effe…
Previewing 3 of 36 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rosanna S. Lucas v. Leonidas E. Wade, 43 Fla. 419 (Fla. 1901)