GREGG MAXCY, INC.,
v.
SOPHRONIA C. BATEMAN, ET VIR.
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 lower court's decree, adopting the chancellor's comprehensive opinion and findings as its own. The court found no error in the chancellor's factual determinations, which were crucial to the case's resolution.
The Florida Supreme Court held that there was no error in the chancellor's findings, opinion, or decree, and affirmed the decision.
“We have discovered no error in the Chancellor's findings, opinion or decree and therefore affirm the decree appealed from on the basis of the Chancellor's opinion and findings which we now adopt as our own.”
This quote establishes the Supreme Court's agreement with the lower court's decision and its adoption of the chancellor's reasoning.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a controversy largely based on disputed issues of fact. The chancellor below wrote a detailed opinion discussing these facts and mad…
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 Findings Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
A detailed discussion of this case by the Supreme Court would subserve no useful purpose, and will therefore be omitted especially in view of the circumstances that the Chancellor in deciding the case below, wrote a comprehensive opinion fully discussing the facts of the controversy which involves no novel legal points' nor propositions of appellate court law not heretofore passed upon more than once by this Court.
The opinion of the Chancellor has been considered by the Court in the light of what is' shown by the transcript and argued in the briefs. We have discovered no error in the Chancellor’s findings, opinion or decree and therefore affirm the decree appealed from on the basis of the Chancellor’s opinion and findings which we now adopt as our own.
In its last analysis the controversy becomes one largely of disputed issues of fact.
In deciding what the actual facts of the case were, the Chancellor made specific decretal findings on all controverted issues, and from a conclusion arrived at on the basis of his findings, the ’Chancellor entered the final decree appealed from. Such is a practice of which we approve. *491Opinions and findings in chancery cases are of incalculable aid to an appellate court in determining whether or not error was committed in rendering a decree that must be sustained largely, if not wholly, on a determination of the facts in dispute between the parties.
Affirmed.
-Whitfield, C. J., and Brown, J., concur.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Meta A. Sahler v. Eli I. Sahler, 154 Fla. 206 (Fla. 1944)…“Stew in their own juice.” This writer is not unmindful of the Per Curiam decision of this Court in the case of Williamson v. Williamson, reported in 14 So. (2nd) at page 712, in which the Court said: “In the case of Gregg Maxcy, Inc., v. Bateman, 119 Fla. 490, 160 So. 745, this Court approved and commended a chancellor in making decretal findings in an equity case. We adhere to and re-affirm this ruling, but a failure on the part of a chancellor to make such specific findings of fact in an equity suit is…
-
Bullock v. Harwick, 158 Fla. 834 (Fla. 1947)…t mandatory, (F.S.A. 63.66), but they serve as a guide by which the Supreme Court can check the correctness of the findings of fact and the legal conclusions of the Chancellor. Day v. Weadock, 101 Fla. 333, 134 So. 525; Gregg-Maxcy, Inc. v. Bateman, 119 Fla. 490, 160 So. 745; Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. v. Smith, 134 Fla. 845, 184 So. 513. In Dade County v. South Dade Farms, 133 Fla. 288, 182 So. 858, this Court not only approved but commended Chancellors in making specific findings of fact. After a s…
-
Chase Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Schreiber, 479 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1985)…561, 47 So. 931 (1909); Parken v. Safford, 48 Fla. 290, 37 So. 567 (1904). . E.g., Elvins v. Seestedt, 141 Fla. 266, 193 So. 54 (19401; Hamilton v. Flowers, 134 Fla. 328, 183 So. 811 (1938); Newman v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 119 Fla. 641, 160 So. 745 (1935); Budd v. Long, 13 Fla. 288 (1869). .Similarly in Tampa Northern R. Co. v. City of Tampa, 104 Fla. 481, 140 So. 311 (1932), the grantee was held entitled to reformation of the deed where the conveyance was made in exchange for a promise to de…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence