J. C. WALKER, ET UX.,
v.
J. B. CONE, ET UX.
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 foreclosure decree, holding that the chancellor's factual findings, which supported the foreclosure, should not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.
No, the appellate court should not disturb the chancellor's findings of fact unless they are clearly shown to be erroneous.
“The findings of the Chancellor upon questions of fact should not be disturbed by the Appellate Court, unless clearly shown to be erroneous.”
This quote establishes the legal standard for appellate review of a chancellor's factual findings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees filed suit to foreclose a real estate mortgage, alleging that the mortgagors defaulted by failing to pay taxes and secure an insurance polic…
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 Mortgage Default cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellees filed suit to foreclose real estate mortgage, alleging as the basis for the right to foreclose that mortgagors had failed to pay the lawfully assessed taxes on the property and have failed to have issued and delivered to mortgagees an insurance policy as required by the terms of the mortgage, and that the mortgage in terms provided that the mortgagees should have the right to immediately foreclose the mortgage in the event of such default.
After hearing on report of special master, decree of foreclosure was entered and appeal taken.
The controlling question presented is one of fact.
The findings of the Chancellor upon questions of fact should not be disturbed by the Appellate Court, unless clearly shown to be erroneous. See Sabins, et al., v. City of *254Daytona Beach, 130 Fla. 62, 177 Sou. 229, and cases there cited.
The decree is affirmed.
So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peterson v. Hancock, 146 Fla. 410 (Fla. 1941)…op. Corp., 136 Fla. 373, 188 Sou. 787; Reaves v. Sadler, 136 Fla. 553, 189 Sou. 41; Grantham v. Grantham, 140 Fla. 120, 191 Sou. 197; Smith v. Stillman, 141 Fla. 312, 193 Sou. 63; Miami Beach v. Texas Co., 141 Fla. 616, 194 Sou. 368; Walker v. Cone, 142 Fla. 253, 194 Sou. 631; Mehaffey v. Mehaffey, 143 Fla. 157, 196 Sou. 416; Miller v. Bay-to-Gulf, 141 Fla. 452, 193 Sou. 425. On the entire record we find no reversible error. So the decree must be affirmed. So ordered. Affirmed. Brown, C. J., Whitfield a…
Authorities Cited
- Sabins v. City of Daytona Beach, 130 Fla. 62 (Fla. 1937)