Z. M. C. BAXTER, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
C. C. LIDDON, 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.
Baxter and others appealed a chancery court decree that granted Liddon's bill for injunction against ejectment proceedings and ordered conveyance of disputed land based on equitable title. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, finding the evidence supported the chancellor's finding that equities favored the complainant.
The court affirmed the decree, finding that the evidence supports the chancellor's finding that equities were with the complainant and that substantial justice was meted out to the respective parties.
“the record does not affirmatively show that any of the objections interposed to such testimony were presented to and ruled upon by the chancellor, either at or before the final hearing of the cause. This being true, we cannot pass upon any of such objections, but must presume that all the matter copied by the clerk into the record purporting to be evidence was used as evidence in the court below.”
Establishes the standard of review: absence of record showing objections were ruled upon requires presumption that all recorded matter was used as evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLiddon filed a bill in chancery seeking to enjoin ejectment proceedings instituted by Baxter and others, and seeking a decree recognizing his equitabl…
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 Equitable Title cases and more on FLexlaw
Shackleford, J.
— The appellee filed his • bill in chancery against the appellants in which he sought to enjoin the prosecution of an action of ejectment which had been instituted against him by the appellants, also a decree to the effect that the appellee had an equitable title to the land in dispute, that the appellants be required to convey the same to him by good and sufficient deeds, and that he might have general relief. The appellants filed an answer to the bill, in which they denied practically all the equi ties of the bill, a replication was filed thereto and the cause referred to a special master or examiner to take and report the testimony of the witnesses produced by the respective parties litigant. A restraining order or temporary injunction Lad previously been granted by the chancellor*, in which it was recited that all parties had notice of the time and place of hearing the application for the same. The cause came on for a final hearing upon the pleadings and upon the testimony so taken and reported by the special master, and a final decree was rendered in favor of the appellee, in accordance with the prayers of his bill. From this decree the appellants have entered their appeal and have assigned as errors the granting of the temporary injunction, the denial of the motion of the defendants for a dissolution of the same and the rendering of the final 'decree.
The pleadings are in rather a confused state, but none of them seem to have been attacked or called in question. Evidently the special master was not empowered to pass upon objections to proffered testimony and much irrelevant and extraneous matter was-introduced, but the record does not affirmatively show that any of the objections interposed to such testimony were presented to and ruled upon by the chancellor, either at or before the final hearing of the cause. This being true, we cannot pass upon any of -such objections, but must presume that all the matter copied by the clerk into the record purporting to be evidence was used as evidence in the court below. Lovett v. Armstrong, 61 Fla. 681, 54 South. Rep. 381.
No useful purpose could be subserved by setting forth either the pleadings or the evidence. As we have already said, the record is confused. There is also more or less conflict in the testimony upon some of the material points, but the chancellor found that the equities were with the complainant and rendered a decree in his favor. We are of the opinion that the evidence supports the decree and that substantial justice has been meted out to the respective parties. See Sarasota Ice, Fish & Power Co. v. Lyle, 58 Fla. 517, 50 South. Rep. 993; Viser v. Willard, 60 Fla. 395, 53 South. Rep. 501; Lovett v. Armstrong, 61 Fla. 681, 54 South. Rep. 381; Brannon v. Blume, 61 Fla. 505, 55 South. Rep. 549. A more extended discussion does not seem called for or advisable. No reversable error having been made to appear, the decree must be affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Cockrell, J., concur;
Taylor, Hocker and Parki-iill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Will Blackwell and Robert Blackwell v. The State of Floirda, 79 Fla. 709 (Fla. 1920)…them. Under the practice sanctioned by this decision the jury trying a prisoner is deprived of the benefit of seeing and hearing the witnesses and thereby judge their credibility. Baggott v. Otis, 65 Fla. 117, 62 South. Rep. 362; Baxter v. Liddon, 62 Fla. 428, 56 South. Rep. 410. Juries have been known to refuse to render a verdict against an accused, because some of the members would not believe a witness on account of his demeanor when giving his testimony. At a subsequent trial of that cause the test…
-
Terra Ceia Ests. v. Nannie E. Taylor, 68 Fla. 261 (Fla. 1914)…are not entitled to the same weight as the verdict of a jury, yet even in that case they should not be disturbed by an appellate court, unless they are clearly shown to be erroneous.” See Barnes & Jessup Co. v. Williams, supra, and Baxter v. Liddon, 62 Fla. 428, 56 South. Rep. 410. We adhere to and fully approve of the following doctrine, which we have several times announced: “While the statutory proceeding for partition may not be used as a substitute for the action of ejectment to try the title to lands…
-
The Bank of Jasper v. Tuten, 62 Fla. 423 (Fla. 1911)…d apply the proceeds to the payment of Tuten’s indebtedness to him. The chancellor properly found that the equities were with Sandlin and against the complainant as to such mules. No error has clearly been made to appear to us. See Baxter v. Liddon, 62 Fla. 428, 56 South. Rep. 410, and prior decisions of this court there cited. The decree must be affirmed. .Whitfield, C. J., and Cockrell, J., concur; Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Viser v. Willard, 60 Fla. 395 (Fla. 1910)
- Davis v. State, 51 Fla. 37 (Fla. 1906)
- Sarasota Ice v. Lyle & Co., 58 Fla. 517 (Fla. 1909)
- Dozier S. Lovett v. Armstrong, 61 Fla. 681 (Fla. 1911)
- Brannon v. Blume, 61 Fla. 505 (Fla. 1911)