AMERICAN SECURITY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
SAMUEL S. GOLDSBERRY, 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 denied a rehearing, affirming its prior decision by holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate an error in the lower court's decree regarding attorney's fees and abstract expenses.
No, the appellant failed to demonstrate an error in the lower court's decree. The court presumed the correctness of the Chancellor's decree in the absence of clear error shown by the appellant.
“The presumption obtains in favor of the correctness of the Chancellor’s decree.”
Establishes the legal standard for reviewing the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, American Security Company, sought a rehearing, arguing that the original bill of complaint did not allege expenses for an abstract of t…
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 Petition For Rehearing cases and more on FLexlaw
Ellis, J.
Appellant filed a petition for a rehearing on the ground that this court overlooked the fact that the bill of complaint did not allege any expense incurred by the complainant for obtaining an abstract of the title to the mortgaged property, nor for attorney’s fees. The mortgage which was attached to the bill of complaint and made part of it, provided for 'the payment of attorney’s fees and all expenses the mortgagee “may reasonably incur or pay because of the failure of the mortgagor or his assigns to comply with the agreements, covenants” etc. of the promissory note. The record does not disclose that the bill for the abstract did not relate to the property. It was the duty of appellant to make the error apparent. The presumption obtains in favor of the correctness of the Chancellor’s decree.
The application for rehearing is denied.
Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford, Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crichlow v. Md. Cas. Co., 116 Fla. 226 (Fla. 1933)…erT ror. The covenant in the mortgage to pay all costs, charges and expenses incurred by reason of the failure of the mortgagors to pay the debt and comply with the covenants covers such an item of expense. See American Securities Co. v. Goldsberry, 69 Fla. 123, 67 South. Rep. 862, 1 A. L. R. 15. The seventh, eighth and ninth paragraphs of the answer sought to present a defense based upon the proposifion that the Maryland Trust Company and Robert Griswold were not empowered to invest their trust funds nor…
-
Snedigar v. Yocum, 131 Fla. 191 (Fla. 1938)…capricious and arbitrary exercise of the quasi-sovereign power. Pursuant to an unwavering line of decisions of this Court, the burden of this appeal was upon the appellants to make the error clearly to appear. American Securities Co. v. Goldsberry, 69 Fla. 123, 67 South. Rep. 862; Jackson v. Jackson, 80 Fla. 557, 86 South. Rep. 510; Wang v. First Nat. Bank of Florida, 92 Fla. 974, 110 South. Rep. 527; Tampa Water Works Co. v. Wood, 104 Fla. 306, 139 South. Rep. 800. No such error appearing from the recor…