Boyd v. Gosser
Decision Date | 09 August 1918 |
Citation | 78 Fla. 70,82 So. 758 |
Parties | BOYD et al. v. GOSSER. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
On Rehearing, July 1, 1919.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; F. M. Robles, Judge.
Suit by Lillian Mayrue Gosser against Nellie T. Boyd, as administratrix, and H. W. Boyd, as administrator, of the estate of W. T. Boyd, deceased, and Nellie T. Boyd in her own right. From a decree for complainant, defendants appeal. Reversed.
On Rehearing.
Syllabus by the Court
The findings of the chancellor on the evidence will not be disturbed by the appellate court unless such findings of fact are clearly shown to be erroneous.
The genuineness of a signature may be ascertained by comparison of the disputed signature with an admittedly genuine one, and when upon such comparison the two signatures are so much alike in the many features of their construction that they agree or correspond in lines, angles, slant, and space occupied, the fact of such correspondence is deemed to be evidence of highly probative value that one is a tracing of the other, or a drawing from a model.
COUNSEL Jas. F. Glen and Kenneth I. McKay, both of Tampa for appellants.
Whitaker Himes & Whitaker, of Tampa, for appellee.
Two suits of the same character between the same parties were, by order of the chancellor, consolidated. The object of each of the suits is the specific performance of an alleged contract in writing, between the complainant and the defendants' decedent, for the sale of certain real estate in the city of Tampa. The contracts are substantially the same in form and substance.
In the bill appearing first in the record the contract is as follows:
It is alleged that the consideration agreed to be paid for the described property, except the sum of $300, has been paid; that the complainant was let into possession of said property and is now in possession thereof, and she offers to bring into court and to pay when and as the court may direct the unpaid balance due under the terms of said contract. There is a prayer for specific performance and for general relief.
The answer admits the death of W. T. Boyd on a date prior to the time of the institution of the suits, and contains the following averments:
Similar averments are contained in the bill and answer of the second suit. To the answers general replications were filed and testimony was taken. Upon the hearing a final decree was entered in favor of the complainant, and from that decree this appeal was taken.
The decisive question in each case is admittedly one of fact, namely, whether or not the evidence sustains the chancellor's decree.
An expert witness testified that in his opinion the signatures of W. T. Boyd to the contracts, the specific performance of which is sought, were forgeries, but there is much apparently credible positive evidence in the record to the effect that the signatures are genuine, and that defendants' decedent, during his life, stated on numerous occasions to a number of persons that he had sold the property to the complainant. There is also testimony in the record to the effect that the contracts had, at the time the bills were filed, been performed to the extent and in the manner alleged in the bills.
Counsel for appellants have presented orally and by briefs, with commendable zeal and ability, an argument for a reversal of the decree upon the theory that it is not supported by the evidence, but this court is thoroughly committed to the proposition that the findings of the chancellor on the evidence will not be disturbed unless such findings of fact are clearly shown to be erroneous. Brickell v. Town of Ft. Lauderdale, 78 South. 681; Manasse v. Dutton Bank, 78 So. 424; Mickens v. Mickens, 78 So. 287; Smith v. O'Brien, 78 So. 14; Simpson, Trustee, v. First National Bank, 77 So. 204. We have care fully examined all the evidence. No useful purpose would be served in setting it out in this opinion. There is ample evidence to sustain the decree. Applying the foregoing rule, it inevitably follows that this contention cannot be sustained.
Error is assigned upon the refusal of the chancellor to permit counsel for the defendants to undertake to illustrate at the final argument that the signatures to the contracts and certain receipts were forgeries made by tracings, by projecting enlarged images or photographs thereof in juxtaposition with enlarged images or photographs of genuine signatures upon a screen so as to show the line quality of the questioned signatures as distinguished from the line quality of the genuine signatures. Upon this point the decree is as follows:
'At the final hearing of said cause, during the argument of counsel, and after the special master had filed his report of the testimony, counsel for the defendants applied to the court to go to some moving picture establishment in the city of Tampa, Fla., to permit, at said point, the counsel for the defendants, through the use of a moving picture machine and its operator, to cause to be projected upon the screen of the establishment an enlargement of certain plates filed in evidence as Defendants' Exhibits Nos. A1, A2, A3, and A4 to illustrate the contention of the defendants that the two contracts involved in the said suits were forgeries, to which application the complainant, through her counsel, objected on the grounds that the application was not seasonably made, that the court was not warranted in granting the same, and that the said proposed test could not be made applicable to all of the writings in dispute or to the genuine signatures of W. T. Boyd, deceased, filed in evidence; and the court being of the opinion that the said application was neither authorized nor that the court, in the exercise of its discretion, should grant the same, said application was denied, to which ruling counsel for the defendants then and there excepted.'
The original contracts, as well as a number of the signatures of Boyd which were admittedly genuine, were before the court. There were also in evidence a number of photographs of the genuine and of the questioned signatures, some of which were enlarged and others of the same size as the originals. In this situation, even if the proposed illustration was admissible, which we do not now decide, it was not reversible error to refuse the application.
From what has been said, it follows that the decree must be affirmed.
On Rehearing.
Upon the first hearing of this case we affirmed the decree of the chancellor by applying the rule so often announced by this court that the findings of the chancellor on the evidence will not be disturbed unless such findings of fact are clearly shown to be erroneous. We stated in the opinion that there was much apparently credible positive evidence in the record to the effect that the signatures to the two documents involved were genuine. Both the rule and the statement of fact are correct, but the error in the conclusion arrived at upon the first hearing consisted in treating the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miller v. First American Bank and Trust
...there was some evidence tending to support the finding."). Accord Howell v. Blackburn, 100 Fla. 114, 129 So. 341 (1930); Boyd v. Gosser, 78 Fla. 64, 82 So. 758 (1918); Fuller v. Fuller, 23 Fla. 236, 2 So. 426 (1887); John D.C. v. State, 16 Fla. 554 (1878); Uhley v. Tapio Constr. Co., Inc., ......
-
Polley v. Cline's Ex'r
... ... Strode, 194 Ky. 665, ... 240 S.W. 368, 27 A.L.R. 319, In re O'Connor's ... Estate, 105 Neb. 88, 179 N.W. 401, 12 A.L.R. 212, ... Boyd ... ...
-
Tyler v. Tyler, 477
...Beacham, 79 Fla. 430, 85 So. 147; Douglas v. Ogle, 80 Fla. 42, 85 So. 243; Whidden v. Rogers, 78 Fla. 93, 82 So. 611; Boyd v. Gosser, 78 Fla. 64, 82 So. 758, 6 A.L.R. 500; Brickell v. Town of Ft. Lauderdale, 75 Fla. 622, 78 So. 681; Manasse v. Dutton Bank, 75 Fla. 327, 78 So. 424; Mickens v......
-
Schaefer v. Voyle
... ... Ogle, 80 Fla. 42, 85 So. 243; Hill v ... Beacham, 79 Fla. 430, 85 So. 147; Whidden [88 ... Fla. 173] v. Rogers, 78 Fla. 93, 82 So. 611; ... Boyd v. Gosser, 78 Fla. 64, 82 So. 758, 6 A. L. R ... 500; Brickell v. Town of Ft. Lauderdale, 75 Fla ... 622, 78 So. 681; Manasse v. Dutton Bank, 75 ... ...