E. P. DUNCAN, AS LIQUIDATOR FOR THE FORT LAUDERDALE BANK & TRUST CO.,
v.
JOHN W. MARTIN, ET AL.
E. P. DUNCAN, AS LIQUIDATOR FOR THE FORT LAUDERDALE BANK & TRUST CO.,
JOHN W. MARTIN, ET AL.
113 Fla. 717
Florida Supreme Court (1934)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 152 So. 16
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
The appeal here is from a final decree in a case instituted by way of a creditor’s bill, the purpose of which was to set aside alleged fraudulent conveyances of an insolvent debtor. The correctness of the decree, appealed from depends upon whether or not there is evidence sufficient to support the decree. We find in the record substantial evidence to support the decree and as we cannot say that the conclusions of the Chancellor drawn from the evidence are clearly erroneous, the decree should be affirmed. It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Phillips v. Greene, 994 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…(1) requires notice to all interested parties and a hearing before a receiver is appointed. It is well established that courts are generally not warranted in appointing a receiver without notice. See, e.g., Leesburg Motor Co. v. Libal, 113 Fla. 742, 152 So. 16 (1934). [*373] Rule 1.620 requires compliance with the notice requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610. Thus, incorporating rule 1.610 requirements, a receiver may only be appointed without notice if: (1) it appears from specific facts…