T. R. KNIGHT, ET UX.,
v.
ROSE V. RAFFEL
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 Supreme Court affirmed a foreclosure decree, finding sufficient evidence supported the lower court's findings regarding a mortgage dispute arising from a property exchange.
Yes, the evidence is ample and substantial enough to support the Master's findings and the Chancellor's decree of foreclosure.
“The only real question presented is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to warrant the findings of the Master and the findings and decree of the Chancellor based thereon.”
This quote frames the central legal question on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants mortgaged property to secure an $8,000 note. This mortgage was part of a larger transaction where appellants received other property from a…
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 Mortgage Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal here is from final decree of foreclosure in favor of complainant of a mortgage securing note in the sum of $8,000.00.
The only real question presented is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to warrant the findings of the Master and the findings and decree of the Chancellor based thereon.
There is ample substantial evidence to support the findings and decree.
The evidence shows in short that appellant for a consideration of $10,000.00, being cash in the sum of $2,000.00 and four notes for $2,000.00 each secured by a mortgage which is the subject of this foreclosure, was allowed to retain property covered by the mortgage which he had agreed to convey to appellee for an agreed consideration of $30,-000.00, as a part payment for other property conveyed by appellee to appellant, and which property agreed to be conveyed by appellant, appellee has agreed to convey to another for $20,000.00.
Therefore, the decree should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Davis, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. Bay-to-Gulf, Inc., 141 Fla. 452 (Fla. 1940)…ng is erroneous. Schonfeld v. Engler, 119 Fla. 138, 160 South. Rep. 879; Boyte v. Stoer, 114 Fla. 395, 153 South. Rep. 845; Frickling Properties, Inc., [*458] v. Smith, 123 Fla. 556, 167 South. Rep. 42; Walter J. Dolan Properties, Inc., v. Vonnegut, 117 Fla. 830, 158 South. Rep. 457; Sabin v. City of Daytona, 130 Fla. 62, 177 South. Rep. 229; Nolen v. Nolen, 121 Fla. 130, 163 South. Rep. 401; Johns v. Gillian, 134 Fla. 575, 184 South. Rep. 140. There is ample evidence in the record to support the finding of…
-
Marcus v. Hull, 142 Fla. 306 (Fla. 1939)…to the same weight and consideration on appeal as the verdict of a jury. Schonfeld v. Engler, 119 Fla. 138, 160 So. 879; Boyte v. Stoer, 114 Fla. 395, 153 So. 845; Fielding Properties v. Smith, 123 Fla. 556, 167 So. 42; Dolan Properties v. Vonnegut, 117 Fla. 830, 158 So. 457. Yet, where the evidence is so clear, certain and convincing that no other conclusion than that the lower court erred in its ruling can be reasonably reached therefrom, this court has no hesitancy in reversing the lower court’s decree.…
-
Michael v. Weber, 127 Fla. 706 (Fla. 1937)…ral rule that decree of Chancellor supported by substantial evidence will not be reversed on appeal. Sapp v. Warner, 105 Fla. 245, 141 Sou. Rep. 124; Gadsden County Tobacco Co. v. Corry, 103 Fla. 217, 137 Sou. Rep. 255; Dolan Properties v. Vonnegut, 117 Fla. 830, 158 Sou. Rep. 457; Fickling Properties v. Smith, 123 Fla. 556, 167 Sou. Rep. 42. A careful study of the record disclosed such a state of the evidence that it cannot be justly said that the Master’s and Chancellor’s conclusions predicated thereon,…