HAZEL W. WATSON, A SINGLE WOMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
GREGORY GALLAGHER, SR., ET AL., 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 District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court's decree enforcing a mechanic's lien, finding that the trial court's decision was supported by substantial evidence despite conflicting testimony.
Yes, the trial court's decision was supported by substantial evidence, and therefore, the decree enforcing the mechanic's lien is affirmed.
“Our study of the record, including the testimony presented at the trial, shows that the Chancellor reached his decision on conflicting testimony, and that there was ample evidence before him to prompt and sustain his decree.”
This quote establishes that the appellate court reviewed the evidence and found it sufficient to support the trial court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn appellee sued to enforce a mechanic's lien for unpaid wages for labor on the appellant's property. The appellant denied the claim and counterclaime…
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 Claim For Wages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final decree granting enforcement of a mechanic’s lien on property of appellant.
The appellee, as plaintiff in the Circuit Court, sued claiming $556.47 was due him as wages for his labor in improving appellant’s property, and to secure its payment through lien foreclosure.
Appellant, as defendant, answered denying the claim, and counterclaimed for $367 for alleged defective workmanship.
The suit was tried before the Chancellor, who found that the equities were with the plaintiff, decreed that the sum he claimed for wages was due him and ordered foreclosure enforcement of his lien therefor. Our study of the record, including the testimony presented at the trial, shows that the Chancellor reached his decision on conflicting testimony, and that there was ample * evidence before him to prompt and sustain his decree.
It was within the province of the trier of the facts to resolve the conflicts in the evidence, and this court will not disturb a finding where there is substantial evidence supporting it.
Accordingly, the decree appealed from is affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Republic Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Valdes, 348 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…jury verdict. See Motes v. Crosby, 65 So. 2d 478 (Fla.1953); and J. A. Cantor & Associates, Inc., v. Devore, 281 So. 2d 245 (Fla.3d DCA 1973). Further, a jury is the sole judge of the facts where the evidence is conflicting. See Watson v. Gallagher, 96 So. 2d 472 (Fla.3d DCA 1957); and Crews v. Warren, 157 So. 2d 553 (Fla.lst DCA 1963). We conclude, therefore, that the evidence was sufficient to withstand defendant’s motion for directed verdict upon the issue of whether the death was accidental. This is espe…
-
Light v. King, 179 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…not weigh the evidence, for that is the primary function of the trial judge. In re Brackett’s Estate, Fla.App.1959, 109 So. 2d 375. It is within the province of the trier of facts to resolve conflicts in evidence. Watson v. Gallagher, Fla.App.1957, 96 So. 2d 472. It appears that the court found from the conflicting evidence that the plaintiff loaned Inter-American Development Corporation $25,000.00. In consideration of such loan the plaintiff would receive fifty percent of the profits of the corporation, th…
-
Interstate Eng'g Co., Inc. v. Adler-Built Indus., Inc., 164 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…arently considered necessary before the City would give its approval. We therefore, affirm the chancellor’s finding that the plaintiff-appellant is barred from recovery by the terms of its own contract with Adler. Watson v. Gallagher, Fla.App. 1957, 96 So. 2d 472; Food Fair Stores of Florida v. Vallarelli, Fla.App.1958, 101 So. 2d 161. One additional aspect of this case must be considered. The intervening defendant, Federal Title and Insurance Corporation, as appellee, has cross-assigned as error that the c…