THE EVERGLADES CYPRESS COMPANY AND MIRIAM MAYS LEE, ET VIR,
v.
JOHN PORTER TYNER, SOMETIMES KNOWN AS JOHN P. TYNER, AND SOMETIMES KNOWN AS J. PORTER TYNER, ET AL.
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 decree in a mortgage foreclosure dispute between the Everglades Cypress Company and Miriam Mays Lee against John Porter Tyner, finding no reversible error and ample testimony supporting the chancellor's findings regarding payment of a note and mortgage.
The Court held that no reversible error appeared in the chancellor's order. The chancellor's findings on the facts, having heard the evidence and witnesses, should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous, and here the testimony amply supported those findings.
“the chancellor's findings should not be disturbed by an Appellate Court unless shown to be clearly erroneous”
Establishes the standard of appellate review for factual findings by a chancellor, requiring clear error to reverse
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 dispute over a note and mortgage, with the defendant raising a payment defense. The chancellor heard evidence and made factual fin…
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 Factual Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
The above entitled cause having been submitted upon the transcript of the record and briefs and argument of counsel, and the Court having considered the defense of payment of the note and mortgage, and there appearing ample testimony in the record to support the conclusions of the Chancellor below, the Court is of the opinion that no reversible error appears and that the order appealed from should be affirmed. In the case of Farrington v. Harrison, 95 Fla. 769, 116 So. 497, this Court said:
“We also bear in mind the oft reiterated rule that while the findings of the chancellor on the facts where the evidence is heard by him, and the witnesses are before him, are entitled to more weight in the Appellate Court than where such findings are made in a cause where the testimony was not taken before the chancellor, yet in either case *741the chancellor’s findings should not be disturbed by an Appellate Court unless shown to be clearly erroneous. Sandlin v. Hunter Co., 70 Fla. 514, 70 South. Rep. 553; Travis v. Travis, 81 Fla. 309, 87 South. Rep. 762; Lucas v. Wade, 43 Fla. 419, 31 South. Rep. 23.
“On the other hand, where a decree is manifestly against the weight of the evidence or contrary to and unsupported by the legal effect of the evidence, then it becomes the duty of the Appellate Court to reverse such decree. Carr v. Leslie, 73 Fla. 233, 74 South. Rep. 207; Florida National Bank v. Sherouse, 80 Fla. 405, 86 South. Rep. 279; Gill v. Chappelle, 71 Fla. 479, 71 South. Rep. 836; Lightsey v. Washington Park Properties, 112 South. Rep. 555.”
The decree appealed from is affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 465 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1985)…this improperly conveyed to the prospective jurors that the bailiffs regarded appellant as dangerous or a security risk. Appellant relies on Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976), and Shultz v. State, 131 Fla. 757, 179 So. 764 (1938). Upon the making of the motion for mistrial, the judge held a hearing in chambers to inquire into the circumstances of the handcuffing. The bailiffs told the court that the handcuffing was done not in the courtroom but outside the courtroom i…
-
McCOY v. State, 175 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…to and from a courtroom. Under the circumstances the trial judge did not abuse' his discretion in refusing to declare a mistrial. 14 Am.Jur., Criminal Law, § 132; 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law, § 977. Compare dictum in Shultz v. State, 1938, 131 Fla. 757, 179 So. 764 (where it was alleged that the accused was brought into open court dressed in the garb of a convict and in chains and was required [*592] to plead to the information in the presence of the venire from which his jury was to be drawn). Since the poin…
-
Atkins v. State, 210 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)…or as a matter of law. I can hardly conceive of any action of a trial court that would so strongly infringe upon that most fundamental right — the presumption of innocence. The views of the Supreme Court of Florida in Shultz v. State, 131 Fla. 757, 179 So. 764 (1938), as quoted in the majority opinion, strictly considered, probably amount to obiter dictum, as the majority says, because there the judgment appealed from was reversed on other grounds; but I .think that those clearly-expressed views are at le…1 / 3
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
- Farrington v. Harrison, 95 Fla. 769 (Fla. 1928)
- Travis v. Sim Travis, 81 Fla. 309 (Fla. 1921)
- Rosa Chappelle McGill and her husband S. D. McGill v. Chappelle, 71 Fla. 479 (Fla. 1916)
- Giles v. Garland, 70 Fla. 514 (Fla. 1915)
- Rosanna S. Lucas v. Leonidas E. Wade, 43 Fla. 419 (Fla. 1901)
- The Fla. Nat'l Bank of Gainesville v. Sherouse, 80 Fla. 405 (Fla. 1920)
- Ida v. Carr and her husband, 73 Fla. 233 (Fla. 1917)