G. S. TURNIPSEED AND SUSIE MAY TURNIPSEED, APPELLANTS,
v.
HENRY W. BROWN, 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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decree reforming a deed. The court found ample evidence supported the chancellor's findings of fact, adhering to the principle that appellate courts should not disturb a chancellor's factual findings unless clearly erroneous.
Yes, the chancellor's findings of fact are supported by ample substantial evidence, and the decree is not clearly erroneous.
“Questions of fact only are presented by the assignments of error. There is ample evidence to sustain the decree, and the case is well within the familiar principle that the findings of the chancellor on the facts will not be disturbed by an appellate court unless such findings are clearly shown to be erroneous.”
Establishes the nature of the appeal and the standard of review for factual findings.
Appellee filed a bill to reform a deed, alleging certain lands were included by mistake. Appellants filed an answer, and testimony was taken before 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 Reformation Of Deed cases and more on FLexlaw
— Appellee filed bill to reform a deed to con*543form to the intention of the parties at the time the deed was made, so as to exclude certain lands which appeared to have been included in the deed by mistake.
Answer was filed by the appellant.
The Bill and answer clearly presented issues of fact.
Testimony was taken before the chancellor and the decree from which appeal is taken was in favor of the complainant below.
There is ample substantial evidence disclosed by the transcript of the record to support the decree.
"Questions of fact only are presented by the assignments of error. There is ample evidence to sustain the decree, and the case is well within the familiar principle that the findings of the chancellor on the facts will not be disturbed by an appellate court unless such findings are clearly shown to be erroneous.”
Weaver Loughridge Lbr. Co. vs. Kirkland et ux. 99 Fla. 426, 131 Sou. 784; Carr vs. Lesley, 73 Fla. 233, 74 Sou. 207; Cobb vs. Cobb, 82 Fla. 287, 89 Sou. 869; Heinisch et ux. vs. Mills et al., 100 Fla. 967, 132 Sou. 109.
The decree should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
Whiteield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in ■the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gardiner v. Goertner, 110 Fla. 377 (Fla. 1932)…ndel v. Gordon, 92 Fla. 1110, 111 So. 386; Stevens v. Tampa E. Co., 81 Fla. 512, 88 So. 303; Wood-Hoskins-Young Co. v. Taylor Development Co., 98 Fla. 156, 122 So. 224; Howard v. Goodspeed, 101 Fla. 699, 135 So. 294; Foxworth v. Maddox, 137 So. 161; 136 So. 343; 136 So. 506. In the light of the foregoing, it devolves upon us to determine whether it clearly appears from the facts adduced in evidence that the decree of the Circuit Court affirming the finding and order of the Probate Judge is erroneous. The…1 / 2
-
In re Est. of Mary A. Donnelly v. Ashby, 137 Fla. 459 (Fla. 1934)…ndel v. Gordon, 92 Fla. 1110, 111 So. 386; Stevens v. Tampa E. Co., 81 Fla. 512, 88 So. 303; Wood-Hoskins Young Co. v. Taylor Development Co., 98 Fla. 156, 122 So. 224; Howard v. Goodspeed, 101 Fla. 699, 135 So. 294; Foxworth v. Maddox, 137 So. 161, 136 So. 343; 136 So. 506. This Court has repeatedly held that in equity as in law every presumption is in favor of the correctness of the ruling of the trial court and a decree based largely or solely on questions of fact will not be disturbed unless' clearly…
-
Maxwell v. Smith, 119 Fla. 389 (Fla. 1935)…la. 191, 74 South. Rep. 216, 1 A. L. R. 25; Smith v. O'Brien, 75 Fla. 252, 78 South. Rep. 13; Coogan v. Burley, 92 Fla. 899, 110 South. Rep. 529; Woodruff v. Lantana Finance Corp. 102 Fla. 950, 136 South. Rep. 712; Turnipseed v. Brown, 102 Fla. 542, 136 South. Rep. 343. The method used by the complainant to exact from the defendants a sum of money amounting to a compensation greater than ten per cent, per annum upon the sum actually loaned was a scheme, device or contrivance whereby the inhibitions of the statute…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cobb v. Cobb, 82 Fla. 287 (Fla. 1921)
- Ida v. Carr and her husband, 73 Fla. 233 (Fla. 1917)
- Mendes v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. (Fla. 2d DCA 2025)
- Weaver-Loughridge Lumber Co. v. J. Ham Kirkland et ux., 99 Fla. 426 (Fla. 1927)
- Hennessy v. Grover Cleveland Hudson, 100 Fla. 967 (Fla. 1930)