JAMES H. STANLEY AND HIS WIFE RAYME B. STANLEY, APPELLANTS,
v.
SUMPTER 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a foreclosure decree, holding that the evidence supported the lower court's finding that the defense of usury was not sustained. The court emphasized that appellate courts should not reverse trial court decisions on factual matters unless the evidence clearly shows error.
Yes, the evidence sustains the master's findings and the chancellor's decree. The evidence preponderates in favor of the correctness of the decree, and it does not clearly show the decree to be erroneous.
“in equity, as well as at law, every presumption is in favor of the correctness of the rulings of the trial judge, and a final decree rendered by him, based largely or solely upon questions of fact, will not be reversed, unless the evidence clearly shows it to be erroneous.”
establishes the standard of review for factual findings by the trial court.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee filed a mortgage foreclosure suit. The appellants, as defendants, raised the defense of usury in the note secured by the mortgage. A mast…
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 Usury Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
Taylor, J.
— The appellee filed his bill in the Circuit Court of Duval County in chancery against the appellants for the foreclosure of a mortgage. The appellants as defendants below answered the bill alleging usury in the note to secure which the mortgage was given. The case was referred to master to take and report the evidence. Upon the coming in of the master’s report finding that the defense of usury had not been sustained the defendants excepted to such report. These exceptions were overruled by the chancellor, and a final decree of foreclosure was rendered for the full amount claimed by the complainant. This decree the defendants below bring here for review by appeal.
The sole question presented here is does the evidence sustain the findings of the master and the decree of the chancellor? In the case of Brannon v. Blume, 61 Fla. 505, 55 South. Rep. 549, it was held that in equity, as well as at law, every presumption is in favor of the correctness of the rulings of the trial judge, and a final decree ren dered by him, based largely or solely upon questions of fact, will not be reversed, unless the evidence clearly shows it to be erroneous. Guided by this rule we are of the opinion that the evidence in the record before us, so far from showing clearly that the chancellor’s decree is erroneous, greatly preponderates in favor of the correctness of the decree. And so finding the decree of the court below in said cause is hereby affirmed at the cost of the appellants.
Hocker and Parki-iill, J. J., concur;
Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Francis v. Francis, 133 Fla. 495 (Fla. 1938)…Sou. 711; Hill v. Hill, 123 Fla. 571, 167 Sou. 414. The rule is well settled that a final decree or order based largely or solely upon questions of fact will not be reversed unless the evidence clearly shows it to be erroneous. Stanley v. Thompson, 62 Fla. 576, 57 Sou. 196; Bank v. Tuten, 62 Fla. 423, 57 Sou. 238; Baxton v. Liddon, 62 Fla. 428, 56 Sou. 410; Peoples Realty Co. v. Southern Colonization Co., 78 Fla. 628, 83 Sou. 527. See also Scofield v. Scofield, 119 Fla. 138, 160 Sou. 879; Hill v. Padgett,…
-
Pierce v. Brand Props., Inc., 130 Fla. 469 (Fla. 1938)…mselves into the one question, “Does the evidence as disclosed by the record substantially support the findings and decree of the Master and the Chancellor.” The answer must be in the affirmative and the decree must be affirmed. Stanley v. Thompson, 62 Fla. 576, 57 So. 196; Bank v. Tuten, 62 Fla. 423, 57 So. 238; Baxton v. Liddon, 62 Fla. 428, 56 So. 410; People’s Realty Co. v. Southern Colonization Co., 78 Fla. 628, 83 So. 527. Schonfeld v. Engler, 119 Fla. 138, 160 So. 879; Hill v. Padgett, 114 Fla. 519,…
Authorities Cited
- Brannon v. Blume, 61 Fla. 505 (Fla. 1911)