C. M. FARBER AND LODIE M. FARBER, AS EXECUTRIX AND HEIR OF THE ESTATE OF JULIUS E. FARBER,
v.
MARGARET S. PERRY, A WIDOW, PERSONALLY; AND MARGARET S. PERRY, AS ADMINISTRATRIX CUM TESTAMENTO ANNEXO DE BONIS NON OF THE ESTATE OF LINA STARKE
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 that dismissed a specific claim due to the plaintiff's failure to meet the burden of proof. The court found the decree was supported by the record and saw no need for a detailed written opinion.
No, the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof for the $4,200.00 item, and the lower court's dismissal of this claim was proper.
“It further appearing unto this court that the plaintiff has failed to meet the burden of proof in regard to the $4,200.00 item claimed in the bill of complaint, which burden of proof this court is of the opinion rests upon the plaintiff:”
This quote establishes the lower court's finding that the plaintiff failed to satisfy their burden of proof regarding the disputed financial claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs, C. M. Farber and Lodie M. Farber, sought to recover a $4,200.00 item. The lower court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet their b…
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.
This is the second appearance of this case in this Court. See Perry v. Farber, 115 Fla. 410, 155 Sou. 839.
AVe perceive no useful purpose that may be served by writing and promulgating an opinion dealing with the law as applicable to the facts in this case. The result of the litigation must depend upon the sufficiency of the evidence to *112support the decree of the chancellor. The pertinent part of the decree is:
“(b) It further appearing unto this court that the plaintiff has failed to meet the burden of proof in regard to the $4,200.00 item claimed in the bill of complaint, which burden of proof this court is of the opinion rests upon the plaintiff:
“It Is Thereupon Considered, Ordered and Decreed That the portion of the bill of complaint as pertains to the $4,200.00 item be and the same is herein and hereby dismissed at the cost of the plaintiff, and it appearing to the court that all of the testimony taken in this cause was taken with reference to the $4,200.00 item.”
The decree finds ample support in the record and is affirmed.
So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Ti-iomas, J. J., concur.
Chapman, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Wi-iitfield and Brown not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.