J. F. FLANAGAN, ET UX.; J. W. GLASS; J. M. GLASS, ET UX., APPELLANTS,
v.
FRANK RAKIEWICZ, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the evidence abundantly sustained the bill of complaint.
Appellee conveyed Florida real estate and a car in exchange for an Indiana farm, only to discover the seller had no title. The Florida property was th…
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 Fraudulent Inducement cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellee filed his bill against appellants to cancel the transfer of certain real estate and a Ford car. Answer was filed and the chancellor heard the evidence and granted the prayer.
The bill charges the appellants, J. W. Glass and one Flanagan, fraudulently induced appellee to convey some land and .a Ford.car in .Pasco County to Flanagan in exchange for a *208farm in Indiana.- 'After the exchange of papers appellee visited the Indiana- -farm for the first time and learned that Flanagan had no 'title to convey. Upon his return he was unable to locate Flanagan but learned that Flanagan had conveyed the Florida property to appellant, J. M. Glass.
That J. M. Glass was the son of J. W. Glass and the last mentioned transfer was in consideration of a pre-existing debt from the father to the son.
Decree pro confesso was entered against Flanagan. Answer was filed by Glass and his son.
The chancellor considered the case on depositions and on oral testimony taken before him and found the charges of fraud sustained and granted the prayer of the bill.
The case comes here on appeal with numerous assignments of error relating mostly to errors in admission and rejection of testimony and an abuse of discretion of the chancellor.
We have examined the record and find no reversible error. The evidence has been considered by us, and we, too, find that it abundantly sustains the bill and the case is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Brown, C. J., Terrell, and Buford, J. J., concur.
Thomas, J. agrees to conclusion.