LIZZIE REED MEREDITH, A WIDOW,
v.
WILLIAM H. CARTER
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 foreclosure decree, finding that the record contained substantial evidence supporting the chancellor's decision and that the appellant failed to demonstrate clear error.
No, the chancellor did not err. The appellate court should not reverse a decree unless it clearly appears to be erroneous, and the appellant failed to demonstrate such clear error.
“The case comes to us, however, as though the decree of December 15, 1931, had not been entered.”
This quote establishes the appellate court's perspective when reviewing the second decree after rehearing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involves an appeal from a final decree of foreclosure. The initial decree favored the defendant, but a rehearing resulted in a subsequent de…
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 Mortgage Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
-The appeal in this case is from a final decree of foreclosure in the suit brought to foreclose a mortgage. The decree appealed from was filed on the 24th day of February, 1932, on rehearing after a final decree in favor of defendant had been originally filed on December 15, 1931.
Whether the decree of December 15, 1931, is correct or the decree appealed from is correct depends entirely upon *149the weight and construction -to be applied to the evidence adduced from the trial.
There is substantial evidence in the record to support either decree. The case comes to us, however, as though the decree of December 15, 1931, had not been entered. Under this state of facts, the appellate court should not reverse the decree of the chancellor, unless it clearly appears that such decree is erroneous.' The appellant has not caused this clearly to appear and, therefore, it becomes the duty of this Court to affirm the decree appealed from. It is affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Town of Lake Placid, 117 Fla. 874 (Fla. 1935)…squarely presented to the court for determination,” that “the court cannot evade the duty it owes to every citizen to protect him against invasion of his constitutional rights.” In the case of State, ex rel. Attorney General, v. City of Avon Park, 111 Fla. 148, 149 South. Rep. 408, this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Whitfield, announced the principle that the “organic provisions relating to establishing municipalities, by necessary implication, contemplate the creation of municipalities embracing se…
-
Rubin v. Kapell, 105 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…r short of establishing them. It may raise a suspicion, but that is all. The Supreme Court of Florida has held that a final decree of foreclosure supported by substantial evidence should not be reversed unless clearly erroneous. Meredith v. Carter, 111 Fla. 148, 149 So. 408; Campbell v. Victory, 118 Fla. 714, 160 So. 195, 196. In this case the Court says: “The correctness of the decree depends upon whether or not the decree is supported by the evidence. The evidence was conflicting. The conflicts were res…