JAMES DI MARCO, APPELLANT,
v.
E. W. KING AND SADIE L. KING, 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.
James DiMarco appealed a trial court decree that found a thoroughbred racehorse was owned by the defendant's wife and the appellant's wife as partners, rather than by the appellant himself. The court affirmed, holding that the chancellor's findings based on conflicting evidence were supported by substantial testimony and should not be disturbed on appeal.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decree, finding that substantial evidence in the record supported the chancellor's finding that the horse was owned by the wives as partners, and that no harmful error was committed by the chancellor.
“where the evidence is heard by the chancellor and the witnesses are before him, the chancellor's findings based upon conflicting evidence should not be disturbed by the appellate court if the record contains substantial testimony to sustain the decree”
Establishes the standard of review: appellate courts should defer to trial court findings of fact when supported by substantial evidence
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDiMarco hired E.W. King as a horse trainer for the racehorse 'Harmonizing,' which DiMarco claimed to own. While in King's custody, the horse won purse…
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 Appellate Review Of Chancellor'S Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, James DiMarco, brought suit against the appellee, E. W. King, seeking an accounting and the appointment of a receiver to take possession of the thoroughbred race horse, “Harmonizing”. The complaint set forth that the appellant was the legal owner of the horse; that the appellee was employed as a horse trainer to care for and race the said horse; and that while the said horse was in the custody of the appellee, E. W. King, the horse won purses in excess of $100,000, which purses are still owing to the appellant.
Appellee, by his answer and by a cross-complaint in which he was joined by his wife, Sadie L. King, denied ownership in the appellant and alleged that, although he was originally hired by the appellant as a trainer for the race horse, Harmonizing, the said horse was now owned by the wives of the parties as a result of an oral agreement entered into between appellee, C. W. King, and appellant. Appellees prayed that the partnership between appellee, Sadie L. King and the appellant’s wife, Jean DiMar-co, be dissolved and that the said horse be sold at public auction.
The court appointed a receiver and, after a number of hearings before the court in which all the pertinent testimony was taken, decreed that the race horse, Harmonizing, was owned by the appellee, Sadie L. King and the appellant’s wife, Jean DiMarco; that the receiver sell the said race horse at public auction; that the monies owing to each of the parties be as fixed by this final decree and that the relative rights with respect to certain other horses as set out in the amended cross-complaint be as determined by this final decree.
Appellant contends that there is no evidence to support the final decree and that it must therefore be reversed. As further error, appellant contends that the chancellor entered orders on matters not properly before him.
By cross-assignment of error, appellee, E. W. King, assails the final decree in that it does not properly determine the amount of money owed to him by the appellant.
We have carefully reviewed the record and considered the assignments and cross-assignments of error and find that no harmful error has been committed.
*752Although we find much of the evidence to be conflicting, it is our view that it amply supports the chancellor’s decree. It is a well-settled rule that where the evidence is heard by the chancellor and the witnesses are before him, the chancellor’s findings based upon conflicting evidence should not be disturbed by the appellate court if the record contains substantial testimony to sustain the decree. Cowen v. Cowen, Fla.1957, 95 So.2d 584; Thompson v. Field, Fla.1951, 54 So.2d 520; Wilson v. Rooney, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 892.
Accordingly, our judgment must be one of affirmance.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ames v. Ames, 153 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…on of authorities that where the evidence is heard by the Chancellor and the witnesses are before him, the Chancellor’s findings should not be disturbed by the appellate court unless shown to be clearly erroneous.” In DiMarco v. King, Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 750, this is said: “It is a well-settled rule that where the evidence is heard by the chancellor and the witnesses are before him, the chancellor’s findings based upon conflicting evidence should not be disturbed by the appellate court if the record co…
-
Berger v. Berger, 182 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)…s heard by the chancellor, and the witnesses are before him, his findings based upon conflicting evidence should not be disturbed by an appellate court if the record contains substantial evidence to sustain the decree. DiMarco v. King, Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 750; Cowen v. Cowen, Fla.1957, 95 So. 2d 584; Thompson v. Field, Fla. 1951, 54 So. 2d 520.” We fail to find any error and thus approve these adjudications. We take up now the court’s action in awarding the use of the home property and contents to the…
-
Anderson v. Anderson, 180 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…of authorities that where the evidence is heard by the Chancellor and the witnesses are before him, the Chancellor’s findings should not be disturbed by the appellate court unless shown to be clearly erroneous.’ “In Di Marco v. King, Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 750, this is said: “ 'It is a well-settled rule that where the evidence is heard by the chancellor and the witnesses are before him, the chancellor’s findings based upon conflicting evidence should not be disturbed by the appellate court if the record…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Isabel M. Cowen (Papert) v. Cowen, 95 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 1957)
- Wilson v. Rooney, 101 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)