C. H. MEDLIN, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM D. SHARE AND TROPICAL AUTO ELECTRIC SERVICE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1963-04-02
No. 62-245
Before CARROLL, HORTON and BARKDULL, JJ.
151 So. 2d 451 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1963) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

This case involves a consolidated appeal from a final decree in two mortgage foreclosure proceedings. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, which subordinated the appellant's chattel mortgage to the appellee's chattel mortgage.

Holding

The appellate court held that no harmful error was committed and that the record contained substantial evidence to sustain the chancellor's decree.

Key Quotes

“It is a well settled rule that where the evidence is 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 testimony to sustain the decree.”

This quote establishes the legal principle the court relied upon to review the chancellor's findings of fact.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

Two mortgage foreclosure proceedings were consolidated for trial. The central issue on appeal was the subordination of the appellant's chattel mortgag…

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.

Topics
Appellate Review Of Chancellor'S Findings Chancellor's Findings Appellate Review Competent Substantial Evidence

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Review Of Chancellor'S Findings cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
HORTON, Judge.

HORTON, Judge.

Two mortgage foreclosure proceedings were consolidated for trial. This is an appeal from a final decree which, inter alia, subordinated, the appellant’s chattel mortgage on certain machinery and equipment to the appellee’s chattel mortgage.

The facts of this case are quite involved and we see no reason to delineate them here. Suffice it to say that we have carefully reviewed the record and considered the assignments of error and find that no harmful error has been committed. All of the points raised by the appellant are dependent upon issues of fact resolved adversely to him by the chancellor. It is a well settled rule that where the evidence is 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 testimony to sustain the decree. Di Marco 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. Although we find much of the evidence in this case to be conflicting, it is our view that the record contains ample evidence to sustain the chancellor’s decree.

Accordingly, the decree appealed is affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Blum v. Avick, 172 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
    …appellate court is reluctant to substitute its judgment for that of the chancellor, hence the rule that where a decree is supported by substantial competent evidence, an appellate court will not reverse the decree. See Medlin v. Share, Fla.App.1963, 151 So. 2d 451. The appellants contend that Dr. Blum, who furnished all the capital for the partnership venture did not receive his proportionate share of the division of partnership assets consisting of real property owned by the partnership in Dade and Brevard…
  • Seven-Up Bottling Co. OF Miami, Inc. v. George Constr. Corp., 156 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
    …d upon was an issue of fact resolved adversely to the appellant by the chancellor upon conflicting evidence. We will not disturb the chancellor’s finding since in our view it was supported by substantial evidence. See Medlin v. Share, Fla.App. 1963, 151 So. 2d 451; Di Marco v. King, Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 750; Cowen v. Cowen, Fla.1957, 95 So. 2d 584. Appellant also contends that the $16,-000 fee for the rental of appellee’s equipment and the cost of acquisition and installation of the bottling equipment sh…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw