W. R. STOKELY, ELIZABETH WAY, OBE P. GOODE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA, E. E. BOYCE, SHERIFF OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF HATTIE N. STOKELY, EDNA STOKELY SHEPHERD, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, LEWIS SHEPHERD, JR., AND HARRY M. STOKELY, APPELLANTS,
v.
E. A. SEGUI, 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, finding no error in the proceedings and sufficient evidence to support the findings of fact regarding land title and ownership.
The Court held that there was no error in the lower court's decree and that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the findings of fact made by the master and the chancellor.
“it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree”
The court's initial assessment of the lower court's decree.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants challenged a decree concerning land title. The appellee claimed ownership in fee simple, presenting muniments of title and evidence. The re…
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 Fee Simple Title cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to bé given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said decree of the circuit court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur. On Petition for Rehearing.
Opinion filed February 8, 1930.
Per Curiam.
The evidence is legally sufficient to support the findings of fact made by the master and the chancellor. The record shows the title to the land was in Harry M. Stokely when he conveyed it to E. A. Segui, who alleged that he was the owner in fee simple and was seized and possessed of the land when suit was brought, and adduced muniments of title and evidence in support of the allegation, there being no convincing evidence that the land was adversely possessed when it was-conveyed by Harry M. Stokely to E. A. Segui.
Rehearing denied.
VIHITFIELD, P. J., AND StRTJM AND BUFORD, J. J., COnCUr.