J. M. HARVEY AND BANK OF COMMERCE, A CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
THOMAS PALMER, 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 lower court's decree, holding that when there is conflicting evidence, a chancellor's finding of fact will not be reversed if there is sufficient evidence to support it.
No, the decree will not be reversed if there is ample evidence to sustain the chancellor's finding on questions of fact, even if the evidence is conflicting.
“This appeal presents for review a final decree of the Court below and involves a question of fact only.”
Identifies the nature of the appeal and the central issue.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved an appeal of a final decree from a lower court. The core issue presented to the appellate court was a question of fact, with conflic…
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 Factual Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This appeal presents for review a final decree of the Court below and involves a question of fact only. There is conflict in the evidence, but there is in the record ample evidence to sustain the decree of the chancellor. Upon the familiar principle that where testimony is conflicting, but there is evidence sufficient to support the finding of the chancellor upon questions of fact, the decree will not be reversed unless it clearly appears to be erroneous, .the decree in this case will be affirmed. Smith v. Dowling, 81 Fla. 867, 89 South. Rep. 315; Travis v. Travis, 81 Fla. 309, 87 South. Rep. 762; Hill v. Beacham, 79 Fla. 430, 85 South. Rep. 147; Douglass v. Ogle, 80 Fla. 42, 85 South. Rep. 243; Whidden v. Rogers, 78 Fla. 93, 82 South. Rep. 611; Boyd v. Gosser, 78 Fla. 64, 82 South. Rep. 758, 6 A. L. R. 500.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, West and Terrell, J. J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Ellis and Browne, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Travis v. Sim Travis, 81 Fla. 309 (Fla. 1921)
- Douglas v. Ogle, 80 Fla. 42 (Fla. 1920)
- Hill v. Braxton Beacham and Berta Beacham, 79 Fla. 430 (Fla. 1920)
- Smith v. Dowling, 81 Fla. 867 (Fla. 1921)
- Whidden v. Rogers, 78 Fla. 93 (Fla. 1919)
- Administratrix v. Gosser, 78 Fla. 70 (Fla. 1919)
- Administratrix v. Gosser, 78 Fla. 64 (Fla. 1918)