Baggott v. Otis

• Decision Date: 20 May 1913
• Parties: BAGGOTT et al. v. OTIS et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

62 So. 362

65 Fla. 447

BAGGOTT et al. v. OTIS et al.

Florida Supreme Court

May 20, 1913

Rehearing Denied June 24, 1913.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Santa Rosa County; J. Emmet Wolfe, Judge.

Bill by S. Otis and another against F. M. Baggott and another. From decree for complainants, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

While the findings and conclusions of a chancellor, where the testimony is not taken before him, but before a master or examiner, by reason whereof he is not afforded an opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses, are not entitled to the same weight as the verdict of a jury, yet even in that case they should not be disturbed by an appellate court, unless they are clearly shown to be erroneous.

In equity, as well as at law, every presumption is in favor of the correctness of the rulings of the trial judge, and a final decree rendered by him, based largely or solely upon questions of fact, will not be reversed, unless the evidence clearly shows that it was erroneous.

A finding by a chancellor on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed by the appellate court, where the mind cannot repose with entire confidence and certainty on a conclusion in favor of either party.

COUNSEL Sullivan & Sullivan, of Pensacola, for appellants.

Reeves Watson & Pasco, of Pensacola, for appellees.

OPINION

SHACKLEFORD C.J.

S. Otis and W. W. Harrison filed their bill in chancery against F. M Baggott and J. F. Poore, wherein they alleged that the complainants were 'the due and lawful owners in fee simple' of a certain parcel of land, 'known as the Joseph Bonifay grant, being section nineteen (19) in township one (1) south of range twenty-eight (28) west,' which was 'wild, uninclosed, timbered land,' and chiefly valuable for the timber growing thereon. The bill further alleged that the defendants had entered upon such land 'without authority or right, without consent and over the protest of said complainants,' and were cutting boxes in the pine trees growing thereon for turpentine purposes, which would result in 'great and irreparable damages' to the complainants, unless the defendants were restrained from so trespassing upon the land by an order of the court. The relief sought was a restraining order or temporary injunction, which was to be made perpetual on the final hearing, and general relief. The oath to the answer was expressly waived. The defendants filed their answer, in which they denied practically all the material allegations in the bill, especially that the complainants were 'the true and lawful owners in fee simple' of the land in question. A restraining order was granted as prayed for in the bill, a replication was filed to the answer, and the cause was referred to a special master to take the testimony of the respective parties. A large amount of testimony was so taken and the cause came on for a final hearing upon the pleadings and the reported testimony, which resulted in a final decree being rendered in favor of the complainants, wherein the restraining order previously issued was made perpetual. From this final decree, the defendants have entered their appeal and have assigned three errors, all of which...