ATLANTIC BANK & TRUST COMPANY, A CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
THEODORE SENGSTAK, M. E. SHUMAKER (ALSO KNOWN AS MELVIN E. SHUMAKER), AND MARVIE M. SHUMAKER, HIS WIFE, AND EDWARD BROAD, TRUSTEE, 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 regarding the priority of two mortgages. The court found no reversible error in the chancellor's determination, which was based on testimony taken before a special master.
Yes, the lower court's determination of mortgage priority was not clearly erroneous and therefore should not be disturbed. The decree of the chancellor is affirmed.
“While the findings and conclusions of a chancellor, where the testimony is not taken before him but before an examiner or master and the chancellor is not afforded the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses, are not entitled to the same weight as the verdict of a jury and are not so conclusive, yet even in that case they should not be disturbed by an appellate court, unless they are clearly shown to be erroneous.”
Establishes the standard of review for a chancellor's findings when testimony is taken before a master.
The case involved a dispute over whether the mortgage held by Atlantic Bank & Trust Company was prior in dignity to the mortgage sought to be foreclos…
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.
The controlling1 litigated question in this ease was whether or not the mortgage held by the appellant was prior in dignity to the mortgage sought to be foreclosed by Sengstak. The determination of this question depended upon the consideration of testimony taken before a special master and reported to the court. This Court has repeatedly held that,
“While the findings and conclusions of a chancellor, where the testimony is not taken before him but before an examiner or master and the chancellor is not afforded the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses, are not entitled to the same weight as the verdict of a jury and are not so conclusive, yet even in that case they should not be disturbed by an appellate court, unless they are clearly shown to be erroneous. Mock v. Thomson, 58 Fla. 477, 50 So. 673; Lucas v. Wade, 43 Fla. 419, 31 So. 231.”
See Gollnick et ux. v. Barker, opinion filed November 7th, 1927, reported in 114 Sou., page 527.
There were assignments of error bringing many other questions to the attention of this Court, but a careful consideration of the record discloses no reversible error. The decree of the chancellor should be affirmed and it is so ordered.'
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum, Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (26 total)
-
City of Miami Beach v. The Tex. Co., 141 Fla. 616 (Fla. 1940)…o support these findings of fact. The conclusions of a chancellor on questions of fact will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. See Farrington v. Harrison, 95 Fla. 769, 116 So. 497; Atlantic Bank, etc., Co. v. Sengstak, 95 Fla. 606, 116 So. 267; Mock v. [*641] Thompson, 58 Fla. 477, 50 So. 673; Lucas v. Wade, 43 Fla. 419, 31 So. 231; Kent v. Knowles, 101 Fla. 1375, 133 So. 315, 317. We therefore hold Ordinance No. 446 constitutional and valid but the application of the ordinance to The Te…
-
Bowery v. Searles Babbit, 99 Fla. 1151 (Fla. 1930)…the witnesses, his conclusion is not on a par with the verdict of a jury, but his conclusion will not be disturbed unless it clearly appears to be [*1159] erroneous. Roland v. Mathews, 98 Fla. 695, 124 So. R. 34; Atlantic Bank & Tr. Co. v. Sengstak, 95 Fla. 606, 116 So. R. 267; Mock v. Thompson, 58 Fla. 477, 50 So. R. 673, and numerous other Florida cases. In the case now here, we cannot say from the evidence that it clearly appears that the court erred in his finding, to which we last referred. However,…
-
Dade Cnty. v. S. Dade Farms, Inc., 133 Fla. 288 (Fla. 1938)…outh. Rep. 207; Florida National Bank v. Sherouse, 80 Fla. 405, 86 South. Rep. 279; Gill v. Chappelle, 71 Fla. 479, 71 South. Rep. 836; Lightsey v. Washington Park Properties, 112 South. Rep. 555.” See Atlantic Bank, etc., v. Sengstak, 95 Fla. 605, 116 So. 267; Mock v. Thompson, 58 Fla. 477, 50 So. 673; Kent v. Knowles, 101 Fla. 1375, 133 So. 315, 317. Counsel for the intervenors have presented here a number of weighty questions for decision and among them are: the County Commissioners of Dade County, Fl…
Previewing 3 of 26 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rosanna S. Lucas v. Leonidas E. Wade, 43 Fla. 419 (Fla. 1901)
- Mock v. Green B. Thompson, 58 Fla. 477 (Fla. 1909)