PAN AMERICAN METAL PRODUCTS CO., INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ELTON F. HEALY, 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's decree because the appellant failed to provide a transcript of the testimony, which is necessary for reviewing mixed questions of law and fact.
The defendant below appealed a final decree enforcing parties' rights under an agreement. The appellant did not provide a transcript of the testimony …
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.
This is an appeal by the defendant below from a final decree which determined (and enforced) the rights and obligations of the parties pursuant to a certain agreement between them. Although the chancellor’s decree was expressly and necessarily founded upon “all evidence adduced at the final hearing”, the appellant has not favored us with a transcript of the testimony taken in the trial court.
Inasmuch as the question sought to be reviewed is necessarily a mixed question of law and fact, failure to include the transcript is fatal. Under such circumstances the chancellor must be affirmed. McCloskey v. Martin, Fla.1951, 56 So.2d 916, 918; Brody v. Brody, Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 378; Hall v. Davis, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 599; Brown v. Householder, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 801.
This is so because a decree being appealed is generally accorded a presumption of correctness. Stated differently, the burden is on the appellant to make reversible error appear. Brown v. Householder, supra. Obviously an appellant does not satisfy this burden when it seeks review of a decree based partially or wholly on testimony which it does not bring up in the record-on-appeal. Accordingly the final decree here sought to be reviewed must be and it is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. Householder, 134 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Hall v. Davis, 106 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- McClosky v. Martin, 56 So.2d 916 (Fla. 1951)
- Brody v. Brody, 105 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)