BENJAMIN R. WALTERS, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
JOSEPH ATWATER ET UX., 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.
This case involves a dispute over a contract to convey land, where the defendants claimed incompetency and inadequate consideration. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision in favor of the plaintiffs, finding no grounds to reverse.
The appellate court found no grounds to reverse the lower court's decision, implicitly upholding the findings of competency and contract validity.
“We have studied the record in this case and find no grounds to reverse the lower court.”
This quote establishes the appellate court's conclusion after reviewing the case.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs (appellees) sued for specific performance of a contract to convey four lots. The defendants (appellants) argued they were incompetent at th…
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 Inadequate Consideration cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellees, as plaintiffs below, filed their complaint for specific performance of a contract to convey four unimproved lots. Defendants filed an answer by which they alleged that defendants were incompetent at the time of the transaction and that the «onsideration to be given for the land was inadequate. A final hearing was held and after extensive testimony a final decree was entered in favor of the plaintiffs.
The defendants below plead the incompetency of both Benjamin R. Walters and Lizzie Walters, his wife. On this appeal, however, the appellant is not contesting the finding that the defendant’s decedent Lizzie Walters was competent.
There was conflicting evidence before the trial judge especially between two medical witnesses.
The trial judge very carefully summarized the testimony in his final decision. We have studied the record in this case and find no grounds to reverse the lower court.
Affirmed.
SHANNON, C.’j.,~and ALLEN and WHITE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 297 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…ler, n. 2, supra, § 2101 at p. 367. . See, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947). . Most recently, prior to the 1972 revision, in Rule 1.280(c), R.O.P., as amended 1968. . Cf., In re Cleary’s Estate (Fla.App.2d 1962), 135 So. 2d 428. . We except, of course, those unusual circumstances contemplated by the present Rule 1.280(c) in which the deposition may be terminated or delayed pending a “protective order.” .See, Wright and Miller, n. 2, supra, § 2113 at p. 419. See also, Moo…
-
Dibble v. Dibble, 377 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…octrine that rules promulgated by the supreme court which deal with the same subject matter should be construed together and in the light of each other, e. g., Jones v. Seaboard C. L. R. Co., 297 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); In re Cleary’s Estate, 135 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961), cert. dismissed, 146 So. 2d 379 (Fla.1962); 13 Fla.Jur.2d Courts and Judges § 176 (1979), so that incongruous results may, if possible, be avoided. Many such anomalies would arise if, contrary to our holding, an order is deemed f…
-
Boatright v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 218 So. 3d 962 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…914, 919 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (quoting State v. Burris, 875 So. 2d 408, 410 (Fla. 2004)).3 Where, as here, “there are several rules pertaining to the same subject they are to be construed together and in relation to each other.” In re Cleary’s Estate, 135 So. 2d 428, 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961). A. The Text and Interplay of Section 768.79, Rule 1.442, and Rule 1.080 Section 768.79 does not provide for any particular method of service of a proposal for settlement. It merely states that a proposal for settlement “sh…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence