EMMA A. DAVIDSON, BY HER NEXT FRIEND, JAMES V. DAVIDSON AND SARAH E. ALLEN, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM D. COLLIER, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 lower court's decision to dismiss a suit seeking to re-establish a lost deed and quiet title. The court found the evidence presented was too indefinite and uncertain to support the complainant's claims.
No, the lower court did not err. The evidence was too indefinite and uncertain to establish the allegations of the bill.
“Upon the facts it was held, by the court below that even if certain testimony for complainants, which was upon objection excluded, was considered the evidence was too indefinite and uncertain to establish the allegations of the bill, and the bill was dismissed.”
Describes the lower court's finding that the evidence was insufficient.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceComplainants sought to re-establish a lost deed to land and quiet title. The defendants denied the deed's existence and execution. After testimony was…
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 Appellate Review Of Chancellor'S Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This suit was brought to re-establish an alleged lost deed to-certain land described in the bill of complaint and to quiet the title to such land in the complainant. The answer of the defendants denied the execution and existence of such deed and after the taking of testimony upon final hearing the court below held and decreed that the equities were with the defendants. Upon the facts it was held, by the court below that even if certain testimony for complainants, which was upon objection excluded, was considered the evidence was too indefinite and uncertain to establish the allegations of the bill, and the bill was dismissed.
It is well settled here that the findings; of the Chancellor on the facts where the evidence is taken before a Special Master should not be disturbed by an appellate court unless such findings are clearly shown to have been erroneous. Simpson v. First National Bank of Pensacola, 74 Fla. 539, 77 South. Rep. 204; Williams v. Bailey, 69 Fla. 225, 67 South. Rep. 877.
This case is clearly within this rule and it would serve no useful purpose to set out or discuss the evidence in this opinion.
The decree will be affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Edney v. Stinson, 90 Fla. 335 (Fla. 1925)…ree, resting solely [*337] on questions of fact, will not be disturbed, unless the evidence shows that it is clearly erroneous. Travis v. Travis, 81 Fla. 309, 87 South. Rep. 762; Hill v. Beacham, 79 Fla. 430, 85 South. Rep. 147; Davidson v. Collier, 75 Fla. 783, 78 South. Rep. 983; Brickell v. Town of Ft. Lauderdale, 75 Fla. 622, 78 South. Rep. 681; Kirkland v. City of Tampa, 75 Fla. 271, 78 South. Rep. 17; Shad. v. Smith, 74 Fla. 324, 76 South. Rep. 897; Simpson v. First National Bank, 74 Fla. 539, 77 Sou…
-
Crown Corp. v. Robinson, 128 Fla. 249 (Fla. 1937)…o appear that substantial error was committed by the Chancellor in his conclusions, or that the evidence clearly shows them to be erroneous. See Wilson v. Duncan, 92 Fla. 470, 112 Sou. 48; Cobb v. Cobb, 82 Fla. 287, 89 Sou. 869; Davidson v. Collier, 75 Fla. 783, 78 Sou. 983; Edgar v. Bacon, et al., 97 Fla. 679, 122 Sou. 107; Day et ux. v. Weadock, 101 Fla. 333, 134 Sou. 525. See also cases cited in 1936 Cumulative Supplement to Encyclopedic Digest of Florida Reports, page 36, Sec. 169. Whether or not by t…
-
Burnett v. Greene, 105 Fla. 35 (Fla. 1931)…7; McGill v. Chappelle, 71 Fla. 479, 71 South. Rep. 836; Farrell v. Forest Inv. Co., 73 Fla. 191, 74 South. Rep. 216; Simpson v. First Nat. Bank, 74 Fla. 539, 77 South. Rep. 204; Smith v. O’Brien, 75 Fla. 252, 78 South. Rep. 13; Davidson v. Collier, 75 Fla. 783, 78 South. Rep. 983; Hill v. Beacham, 79 Fla. 430, 85 South. Rep. 147. Where there is irreconcilable conflict in the testimony on which a decree is based but there is evidence to support the decree it will not be reversed. Waters v. So. Asphalt & C…
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
- Williams v. Bailey, 69 Fla. 225 (Fla. 1915)
- Simpson v. The First Nat'l Bank of Pensacola, 74 Fla. 539 (Fla. 1917)