HENRY MOORE
v.
JOHN HENDRY
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, finding sufficient evidence to support the decision and declining to consider an issue not raised in the lower court.
The evidence was sufficient to sustain the final decree, and the issue regarding the Special Master's appointment was not preserved for appeal.
“The first question has been resolved by the Chancellor on substantial evidence appearing in the record in favor of the appellees.”
Establishes the court's finding of sufficient evidence to support the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appeal was based on the alleged insufficiency of evidence to support the final decree and the contention that testimony was taken before the Speci…
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 Lower Court Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case the merit of the appeal is based upon the alleged insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the final decree and upon the hypothesis that the testimony considered by the court was taken by a Special Master before the order appointing the Special Master was filed and recorded.
The first question has been resolved by the Chancellor on substantial evidence appearing in the record in favor of the appellees. .
The second question was not raised in the lower court and will not be considered here.
The record shows that the parties appeared before the Master appointed and proceeded to take testimony from time to time without objection; that the testimony so taken was submitted to the court and considered without objection.
Therefore, the decree should be, and is, affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Farr v. Rhoda Farr (Landis), 249 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…was made by the appellant to the appointment of a special master and, in fact, it appears that he consented to same. Therefore, no error has been demonstrated in this regard. Marx v. Withers, 119 Fla. 692, 160 So. 662; Moore v. Hendry, 126 Fla. 411, 171 So. 228; Marsh v. Sarasota County, Fla.App. 1957, 97 So. 2d 312; Karl v. David Ritter, Sportservice, Inc., Fla.App. 1964, 164 So. 2d 23. Lastly, the certified public accountant was the accountant for both parties and there was no error in the order requiri…
-
City of Manatee v. State, 134 Fla. 226 (Fla. 1938)…[*227] Buford, J. The law of this case was determined in our opinion and judgment rendered on its disposition pursuant to a former appeal. See City of Manatee, et al, v. State, ex rel. Walsh, 126 Fla. 425, 171 Sou. 228. That opinion and judgment was filed here on December 5, 1936. On December 18, 1936, Plaintiff in error filed petition here praying leave to present to the Circuit Court application for an order spreading the involved levy over a period of years. Th…