SYDNEY PAPER CO., APPELLANT,
v.
MAURICE GANS, APPELLEE
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.
Sydney Paper Co. appealed a final decree dismissing its complaint for breach of a non-competition agreement entered into as part of a purchase of corporate assets. The appellate court affirmed the chancellor's decision, finding that without a transcript of the final hearing, it must presume the chancellor's findings were supported by competent testimony.
The appellate court affirmed the chancellor's final decree, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate reversible error. Without a transcript of the final hearing, the court must assume the chancellor's findings were proven by competent testimony, and the ambiguity in the agreement terms properly required the chancellor's factual determination.
“It is the duty of the appellant, to see that a proper record is transmitted to the appellate court. When no transcript of testimony is presented, the appellate court must assume that the findings of the chancellor were proven by competent testimony.”
Establishes the procedural requirement that appellants must provide a transcript and that failure to do so results in presumption of correctness of the trial court's findings.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSydney Paper Co. agreed to purchase substantially all assets of three corporations for over $25,000 in cash. As part of the consideration, the parties…
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 Breach Of Non-Compete Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff, Sydney Paper Co., sought injunctive and other relief, for the breach of a non-competition agreement, alleging, inter alia, that it had agreed to purchase substantially all of the assets of three corporations for a sum in excess of $25,000 in cash; and that as part of the consideration of the purchase price, the parties *42agreed to a Non-Competition Agreement The defendant’s answer admitted the allegations relating to the execution of the agreement, denied the allegations relating to a violation of the agreement, raised certain affirmative defenses and counterclaimed. Following a final hearing, the chancellor entered a final decree adverse to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff now appeals.
In denying the plaintiff’s prayer for relief and dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the chancellor made extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law. The $25,000 consideration was found to constitute a part of the overall purchase price of some of the assets.
Of necessity we uphold the findings of the chancellor, since the appellant has not favored us with a transcript of the final hearing. It is the duty of the appellant, to see that a proper record is transmitted . to the appellate court. When no transcript of testimony is presented, the appellate court must assume that the findings of the chancellor were proven by competent testimony. See McClosky v. Martin, Fla.1951, 56 So.2d 916.
In addition, a reading of the Non-Competition Agreement, together with the purchase and sale agreement, indicates sufficient ambiguity in the terms of the agreements as to properly require the chancellor to make a determination of this fact so as to avoid a multiplicity of lawsuits. Once equity takes jurisdiction of a cause, it should settle all rights of the parties growing out of the transaction sued upon, as reflected by the pleadings and evidence adduced before the court, and do complete equity and justice to the parties appearing before the court. It should not leave any material .issues unresolved which would require future litigation for their adjudication. McNeill v. McNeill, Fla.App. 1961, 135 So.2d 785.
Under these circumstances, the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the chancellor committed reversible error and the final decree is therefore
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. Town OF Eatonville, 203 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
-
Carberry v. Foley, 213 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…d. As pointed out above by the trial judge, all the parties were before the court and we find no error in this regard. Ward v. Hopkins, Fla.1955, 81 So. 2d 493; Skillman v. Baker, Fla.App.1962, 142 So. 2d 113; Sydney Paper Co. v. Gans, Fla.App.1966, 193 So. 2d 41. We have also examined the alleged error in the ruling as to the admissibility of certain evidence and find this point not to be well taken. Cole v. Cole, Fla.App.1961, 130 So. 2d 126; Alvarez v. Dumont, Fla.App.1965, 178 So. 2d 352; Barrineau v. B…
-
Warner v. Harris Miami Beach, Inc., 219 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…unable to disturb this ruling by the trial court as we have not been provided with a transcript of the testimony upon which judgment of rescission was based. Bostwick v. Bostwick, Fla.App.1967, 201 So. 2d 779; Sydney Paper Co. v. Gans, Fla.App.1966, 193 So. 2d 41; Wilder v. Altman, Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 250; Belfield v. Lochner, Fla. App.1964, 162 So. 2d 668. We find the joinder in appeal by Schwartzman not to be well-taken, as same was not timely filed. Rule 3.11 b, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A. W…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McClosky v. Martin, 56 So.2d 916 (Fla. 1951)
- McNEILL v. McNEILL, 135 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)