JACKSONVILLE PROPERTIES, INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MANHATTAN BEACH COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND GARY ALEXANDER, APPELLEE
— The questions presented for review in this appeal challenge the correctness of the decree of the chancellor as to matters therein contained which are based on findings of fact. There appears in the record sufficient substantial evidence to constitute a logical basis for each of the findings complained of. The decree should, therefore, be affirmed. Kreher vs. Morley, 84 Fla. 121, 92 Sou. 686, and cases there cited; Lassiter vs. Long, 85 Fla. 439, 96 Sou. 841; Summers vs. Apalachicola Northern Ry. Co., 85 Fla. 9, 96 Sou. 151; Kirkland vs. Hutto, 85 Fla. 82, 95 Sou. *840429; Morton vs. Baya, 88 Fla. 1, 102 Sou. 361; Sirkin vs. Schupler, 90 Fla. 68, 105 Sou. 151. It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gardiner v. Goertner, 110 Fla. 377 (Fla. 1932)…n, 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 evidence befo…
-
In re Est. of Mary A. Donnelly v. Ashby, 137 Fla. 459 (Fla. 1934)…n, 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 erroneous. Se…
-
Randall v. Mickle, 103 Fla. 1229 (Fla. 1931)…es, 101 Fla. 794, 135 Sou. Rep. 505), while assessment of bank stock to make good impairment of capital subserves an entirely different purpose from that intended to be subserved by the double liability of stockholders. Russ v. Golson, 102 Fla. 865, 136 Sou. Rep. 506. In the last case cited, it was distinctly held that double liability of stockholders is individual liability which does not arise, except in case of liquidation, when it is then enforced for benefit of the bank’s creditors. Construing our double l…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maude DeLong Norton v. Blanche Norton Baya, 88 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1924)
- Kreher v. Morley, 84 Fla. 121 (Fla. 1922)
- Sommers v. Beverly, 85 Fla. 9 (Fla. 1922)
- Kirkland v. Hutto, 85 Fla. 82 (Fla. 1923)
- Alberta W. Lasseter v. Long, 85 Fla. 439 (Fla. 1923)
- Sirkin v. Schupler, 90 Fla. 68 (Fla. 1925)