R. L. MILLINOR, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES THORNHILL, 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.
Thornhill sought equitable relief to cancel a deed of conveyance allegedly obtained through imposition upon an illiterate man, with his wife's non-joinder. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's cancellation decree, holding that findings of fact by a chancellor (even when testimony is taken before an examiner rather than the judge) should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous.
The decree is affirmed. While findings of a chancellor lack the same weight as a jury verdict when evidence is taken before a master or examiner, they should not be disturbed by an appellate court unless clearly shown to be erroneous. Here, as evidence supports the chancellor's findings, the decree will not be reversed, and no laches bar relief.
“While the findings and conclusions of a chancellor, where the evidence is not taken before him, but before a master or examiner, by reason whereof he is not afforded an opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses, 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.”
Establishes the standard of review for chancellor's findings when evidence is taken before an examiner rather than the judge—a high bar requiring clear error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThornhill, an ignorant and illiterate colored man, brought suit to cancel a deed of conveyance purportedly executed by himself and his wife to Millino…
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 Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
— Thornhill brought a suit for the cancellation of a deed of conveyance to lands which purported to have been made by him and his wife, the grounds for equitable relief being alleged imposition upon the complainant, an ignorant and illiterate colored man, and that the wife did not join in the pretended conveyance, which the evidence shows to be of the homestead.
An answer was filed by Millinor denying the allegations of the bill of complaint, and testimony was taken before an examiner. The court found for the complainant and decreed accordingly.
On appeal the defendant argues that the testimony does not sustain the decree and suggests laches.
While the findings and conclusions of a chancellor, where the evidence is not taken before him, but before a master or examiner, by reason whereof he is not afforded an opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses, 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.
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 facts, will not be reversed, unless the evidence clearly shows it to be erroneous. Brannon v. Blume, 61 Fla. 505, 55 South. Rep. 549.
The testimony is conflicting, but as there is evidence to support the finding of tbe chancellor, the decree will not be reversed, it not clearly appearing to be erroneous! Under the circumstances disclosed no such laches appear as will bar the relief sought.
The decree is affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Taylor, Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Gardiner v. Goertner, 110 Fla. 377 (Fla. 1932)…the ruling of the trial court and a decree based largely or solely on questions of fact will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. Peacock v. DuBois, 90 Fla. 162, 105 So. 321; McMillan v. Warren, 59 Fla. 578, 52 So. 825; Millinor v. Thornhill, 63 Fla. 531, 58 So. 34; Harp v. McRae, 100 Fla. 141, 129 So. 499. The burden is on appellant to show that the finding and order of the probate judge and the decree affirming same were clearly erroneous. Wang v. First Nat’l. Bk. 92 Fla. 974, 110 So. 527; Rundel…
-
The Commercial Bank of Ocala v. The First Nat'l Bank of Gainesville, 80 Fla. 685 (Fla. 1920)…7] conflicting but sufficient to support the findings of tbe chancellor, these questions are not open for consideration here and a discussion of them would be of no benefit. Phinney v. Phinney, 77 Fla. 850, 82 South. Rep. 357; Millinor v. Thornhill, 63 Fla. 531, 58 South. Rep. 34; Sheppard v. Crowley, 61 Fla. 735, 55 South. Rep. 841. In the final decree the court found in substance that the appellant, the Commercial Bank of Ocala, had received certain moneys as payment's on the indebtedness represented by…
-
Shad v. Smith, 74 Fla. 324 (Fla. 1917)…not.be reversed, unless the evidence clearly shows it to be erroneous. Where the testimony is conflicting but there is evidence to support the finding of 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 provi…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brannon v. Blume, 61 Fla. 505 (Fla. 1911)