HILL
v.
BROGDEN 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.
Hill sued in equity to partition lands and household goods in Calhoun County and sought an accounting of rents and profits. The defendants counterclaimed for reformation of deeds based on mutual mistake and to quiet title. The trial court found the equities favored the defendants and dismissed the complaint, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed on rehearing.
The court held there was no error in the admission of the evidence complained of, and affirmed the chancellor's dismissal of the partition complaint. The court found the evidence overwhelmingly supported the special master's findings as approved by the chancellor regarding reformation of the written instruments.
“The special master made thorough and exhaustive findings and we have never had a case in which the evidence more conclusively supports the findings of the master as approved by the chancellor.”
Demonstrates the strength of the evidence supporting the trial court's findings and the basis for affirming the decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHill claimed ownership of a partition lot and sought to partition certain lands and household goods (primarily furnishings to guest cabins located on …
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
TERRELL, Justice.
This is a suit in equity to partition certain lands and household goods in Calhoun County. The household goods were in the main furnishings to guest cabins that were located on the lands. There was also a prayer for accounting of rents and profits. The answer denied the material allegations of the complaint, but admitted that the complainant at one time owned the “partition lot”. Attached to the answer w-as a counterclaim seeking reformation of certain deeds to the property, dated August 25, 1949. The counterclaim set up an alleged mutual mistake in the description of the land, and sought to quiet title to a portion of it because a deed executed in 1935 was subsequently filed for record by appellant and appeared as a cloud on appellee’s title.
On the issues so made evidence was taken and extensive findings were made by the special master which were approved by the chancellor. The chancellor found the equities to be in favor of the defendants and dismissed the Ml of complaint. This appeal is from that decree.
Several questions are urged but they all go to the intent of the parties as expressed in the instruments and transaction out of which the litigation arose and whether or not evidence explaining them was properly admitted.
We find no error as to introduction of the evidence complained of. The special master made thorough and exhaustive findings and we have never had a case in which the evidence more conclusively supports the findings of the master as approved by the chancellor. The law as to reformation of written instruments was defined by this Court in Horne v. J. C. Turner Cypress Lumber Co., 55 Fla. 690, 45 So. 1016, and has never been departed from. The final decree in this case could be appropriately affirmed on authority of that and similar cases. The uncorroborated judgment of counsel for appellant is not sufficient to overthrow the judgment of a special master approved by the chancellor when both the latter are supported by ample competent evidence.
The petition for rehearing is granted, the first and last paragraphs of our former opinion are amended to read as stated herein, our former judgment is adhered to and as amended this opinion is substituted for the opinion filed October 27, 1953.
Affirmed on rehearing.
ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JT-, concur.