T. H. EDNEY, APPELLANT,
v.
MINNIE MCCASKILL STINSON, 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 trial court's decree granting Minnie McCaskill Stinson an easement over a twelve-foot strip of land adjoining her property in Camp Walton, Florida, to provide ingress and egress to the rear of her lot. The sole issue on appeal was whether the trial court's factual findings were clearly erroneous.
The trial court's decree granting the easement was affirmed because sufficient competent evidence in the record supported the decree, and a decree resting solely on questions of fact will not be disturbed unless the evidence shows it is clearly erroneous.
“a decree, resting solely on questions of fact, will not be disturbed, unless the evidence shows that it is clearly erroneous”
Establishes the deferential standard of review applied to factual findings by trial courts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMinnie McCaskill Stinson sought an easement over a twelve-foot strip of land lying north of and adjoining certain lots in Camp Walton, Florida, includ…
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 Easement For Ingress And Egress cases and more on FLexlaw
"West, C. J.
This is an appeal from a final decree rendered by the Circuit Court of Okaloosa County. It involves the right of the complainant, who is the appellee in this court, and her representatives, to an easement over a strip of land, twelve feet in width, lying north of and adjoining certain described lots in Camp Walton, Florida, one of which lots is owned by complainant, by which easement she may be afforded ingress and egress to and from the rear of such lot.
In the brief for appellant it is stated that all the assignments of error raise the question of whether the appellee has made out her case and established, by a preponderance of the evidence, her right to any interest or easement in the strip of land in controversy.
The only question to be determined is one of fact. In the brief of appellee the statement is made that the evidence was taken in the presence of the chancellor, and that, after all the witnesses had testified, he, by agreement of counsel, personally examined the premises.
To attempt, in an opinion, a summary of the evidence submitted, would probably give little comfort to counsel, and could, in the nature of things, serve no useful purpose as a precedent, since a future similar case, in essential details, is remote.
There are some conflicts in the evidence, but they are more inferential than direct. And a decree, resting solely 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 South. Rep. 204; Baggett v. Otis, 65 Fla. 447, 62 South. Rep. 362; Millinor v. Thornhill, 63 Fla. 531, 58 South. Rep. 34; Robinson Point Lbr. Co. v. Johnson, 63 Fla. 562, 58 South. Rep. 841; West v. Daniels, 57 Fla. 548, 49 South. Rep. 154; City of Jacksonville v. Huff, 39 Fla. 8.
There is sufficient competent evidence in the record to support the decree, so it must, under the rule announced, be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Burnett v. C. W. Greene & Robert A. Meier, 97 Fla. 1007 (Fla. 1929)…ght v. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co., 73 Fla. 130, 74 So. R. 8; Farrell v. Forest Inv. Co., 73 Fla. 191, 74 So. R. 216; Hill v. Beacham, 79 Fla. 430, 85 So. R. 147; Simpson v. First Nat. Bank of Pensacola, 74 Fla. 539, 77 So. R. 204; Edney v. McCaskill, 90 Fla. 335, 105 So. R. 821. A drainage district was proposed to be established in a territory embracing an area of about 13016 acres lying between Hillsborough Bay on the east and Old Tampa Bay and Tampa Bay on the west and south. An area of about eighteen hu…
-
Helland v. Evans, 113 Fla. 839 (Fla. 1934)…71 South. Rep. 836; Farrell v. Forest Inv. Co., 73 Fla. 191, 74 South. Rep. 216; Hill v. Beacham, 79 Fla. 430, 85 South. Rep. 147; Sandlin v. Hunter, 70 Fla. 514, 70 South. Rep. 553; Shad v. Smith, 74 Fla. 324, 76 South. Rep. 897; Edney v. Stinson, 90 Fla. 335, 105 South. Rep. 821. . -Where the evidence is conflicting the finding of the chancellor will not be disturbed unless such finding is clearly shown to be erroneous is a mere corollary to the rule announced above, because the chancellor must conside…
-
Fisher v. Grady, 131 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1937)…1 Fla. 479, 71 So. 836; Farrell v.. Forest Inv. Co., 73 Fla. 191, 74 So. 216; 1 A. L. R. 25; Hill v. Beacham, 79 Fla. 430, 85 So. 147; Sandlin v. Hunter, 70 Fla. 514, 70 So. 553; Shad v. Smith, 74 Fla. 324, 76 So. 897; Edney v. Stinson, 90 Fla. 335, 105 So. 821. ‘“(2) Where the evidence is conflicting, the finding of [*28] the chancellor will not be disturbed unless such finding is clearly shown to be erroneous, is a mere corollary to the rule announced above, because the chancellor must consider the evid…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Travis v. Sim Travis, 81 Fla. 309 (Fla. 1921)
- Simpson v. The First Nat'l Bank of Pensacola, 74 Fla. 539 (Fla. 1917)
- Shad v. Smith, 74 Fla. 324 (Fla. 1917)
- Hill v. Braxton Beacham and Berta Beacham, 79 Fla. 430 (Fla. 1920)
- Kirkland v. City of Tampa, 75 Fla. 271 (Fla. 1918)
- McCormick v. Bond, 75 Fla. 819 (Fla. 1918)
- Brickell v. Town of Fort Lauderdale, 75 Fla. 622 (Fla. 1918)
- City of Jacksonville v. Huff, 39 Fla. 8 (Fla. 1897)
- Baggott v. Otis, 65 Fla. 447 (Fla. 1913)
- Millinor v. Thornhill, 63 Fla. 531 (Fla. 1912)