Alles v. Diaz

• Decision Date: 19 December 1911
• Citation: Alles v. Diaz, 57 So. 614, 62 Fla. 422 (Fla. 1911)
• Parties: ALLES v. DIAZ.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

57 So. 614

62 Fla. 422

ALLES v. DIAZ.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

December 19, 1911

On Rehearing February 5, 1912.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; J. B. Wall, Judge.

Bill by Antolin Alles against Fernando Diaz. Decree for defendant, and complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Where the testimony is conflicting in an equity cause, but there is ample evidence to sustain the finding of the chancellor on the merits, and no errors of law appear, the decree will be affirmed.

COUNSEL

Wall & McKay, for appellant.

F. M. Simonton, for appellee.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The appellant filed a bill to dissolve an alleged copartnership with appellee and for a receiver and an accounting. The answer admitted a former partnership, but denied the then existence of a partnership, and asserted an exclusive right to the property by virtue of conveyances for value made by the complainant to the defendant more than four years before this suit was brought. Replication was filed, and voluminous testimony was taken. The chancellor dismissed the bill, and denied an application for a rehearing, and the complainant appealed.

Conveyances of property used by the former partnership and the possession of the defendant thereunder were shown in evidence. The complainant undertook to show that the asserted conveyances were not made for the purpose of depriving him of his right therein, but for other purposes personal to the complainant.

The testimony is conflicting, but there is ample evidence to sustain the finding in favor of the defendant. No rights of third parties are involved. The rights of the parties between themselves should be left as they themselves fixed them, no unilateral fraud or overreaching being made to clearly appear, as against the finding of the chancellor. See Baxter v. Liddon 62 Fla. --, 56 So. 410.

The decree is affirmed.

WHITFIELD, C.J., and SHACKLEFORD and COCKRELL, JJ., concur.

TAYLOR, HOCKER, and PARKHILL, JJ., concur in the opinion.

On Rehearing.

PER CURIAM.

This cause came on again to be heard upon a rehearing heretofore granted, and being duly considered, and the court being of the opinion that its former decision was in all respects correct, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the decree be and the same is hereby reaffirmed, and the opinion of the court heretofore filed shall stand as the opinion of the court.