A. HEINISCH AND HATTIE HEINISCH, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
O. C. MILLS AND ANNIE M. MILLS, HIS WIFE; D. F. WURST AND O'MEARA M. WURST, HIS WIFE; S. J. T. SEEGAR, S. E. SENTELL AND MRS. JEFFIE J. SMITH, APPELLEES

Fla. | 1931-01-05
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum, J., concur., Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
100 Fla. 1600 Florida Supreme Court (1931) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases

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.

Synopsis

Appellants sought to cancel three warranty deeds in a chain of title, alleging fraud by the intermediate grantees. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint, finding substantial evidence supported the chancellor's findings that fraud was not proven.

Holding

The court held that the appellants failed to prove fraud, as substantial evidence supported the chancellor's findings for the defendants. The court affirmed the dismissal of all three bills of complaint.

Key Quotes

“The case is well within the established rule in this and other jurisdictions that on questions of fact findings of the chancellor will not be reversed, unless it is made clearly to appear that his findings are erroneous.”

Establishes the standard of review for appellate challenges to findings of fact by the trial judge

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

Appellants conveyed property to O. C. Mills by deed dated June 18, 1928. Mills and wife then conveyed to D. F. Wurst on June 19, 1928, and Wurst and w…

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.

Topics
Substantial Evidence Rule Cancellation Of Deed Equity Bona Fide Purchaser

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Substantial Evidence Rule cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
Buford, J.

Buford, J.

Appellants filed their bill of complaint in the court below to cancel and set aside three warranty deeds conveying certain lands.

The first deed complained of was from the appellants to O. C. Mills dated June 18, 1928; the second deed was from Mills and wife to Wurst dated June 19, 1928, and the third deed' was from Wurst and wife to Seegar dated July 11, 1928.

The bill alleged fraud on the part of Mills and Wurst in procuring the deed from the appellants and alleged that Seegar at the time of his purchase of the property was cognizant of the frauds complained of and of the equities of the appellants.

The suit was instituted on March 4, 1929. Testimony was taken before the chancellor. On the 23rd day of May, 1930, the chancellor made his findings and entered a final decree in favor of the defendants. and against the complainants and dismissing the bill of complaint, the amended bill of complaint and the supplemental bill of complaint.

There are six (6) assignments of error. The first four assignments of error are based upon the findings’ of the chancellor and the latter two assignments of error are based upon the action of the chancellor in refusing to permit the witness Mills to testify that a certain deed was a second lien on the property described in the deed and in refusing to permit the witness Mills to testify that the trust deed filed in evidence was a straw deed and made without any consideration whatever.

No error is made to appear in regard to the holding of the chancellor in sustaining objection to Mills testifying as referred to in assignments of error 5 and 6.

The evidence is somewhat voluminous and in some respects it is not entirely harmonious, but as we see it no *1602good purpose can be served by a discussion thereof. There is ample substantial evidence to support the findings of the chancellor; and it is to be remembered that the evidence was taken before the chancellor. The case is well within the established rule in this and other jurisdictions that on questions of fact findings of the chancellor will not be reversed, unless it is made clearly to appear that' his findings are erroneous. Cramer v. Eichelberger, et al., 96 Fla. 683, 118 So. R. 737, and cases there cited.

The decree of the chancellor should be affirmed and it is so ordered.'

Affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Strum, J., concur.

Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • The Wash. Loan & Tr. Co. v. Hutchinson, 107 Fla. 69 (Fla. 1932)
    …een made to appear that the findings of the Chancellor are clearly wrong on the evidence, in cases where there is some evidence from which the Chancellor could have found as he did. Wilson v. Duncan, 92 Fla. 470, 112 Sou. Rep. 48; Heinisch v. Mills, 100 Fla. 1600, 132 Sou. Rep. 109. Prom a study of the record a majority of the Court have concluded that the Chancellor’s findings to- the effect that at the time of the delivery of the securities, the donor, Thomas B. Hutchinson, was mentally capable of making…
  • Thomas v. Thompson, 114 Fla. 833 (Fla. 1934)
    …Fla. 257, 129 Sou. 773; Stringfellow v. Adams, 99 Fla. 623, 127 So. 338; Jordan v. Jordan, 100 Fla. 1586, 132 So. 466; Meloche v. Meloche, 101 Fla. 659, 133 So. 339; Rogers v. Gerow-Calnan & Dann, Inc., 101 Fla. 1174, 132 So. 838; Heinisch v. Mills, 100 Fla. 1600, 132 So. 109.” For the reasons' stated, the decree should he affirmed. It is so ordered. Affirmed. Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Davis, C. J., concurs specially.…
  • Davis v. DeVane, 110 Fla. 108 (Fla. 1933)
    …f his findings upon the facts and the law and the Chancellor to whom that report was submitted found that the evidence was sufficient to meet this rule. We are asked to reverse the Chancellor on the facts. As was stated in Heinisch et ux. v. Mills, 100 Fla. 1600, [*110] 132 Sou. 109, the rule in such case is that we cannot reverse the chancellor on the facts alone, unless it has been made to-appear that the findings of the chancellor are clearly wrong on the evidence, in cases where there is some evidence f…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw