Hogeboom v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 19 November 1915
• Citation: 70 So. 312,70 Fla. 393
• Parties: HOGEBOOM et al. v. ANDERSON.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

70 So. 312

70 Fla. 393

HOGEBOOM et al. v. ANDERSON.

Florida Supreme Court

November 19, 1915

Appeal from Circuit Court, Bay County; J. E. Wolfe, Judge.

Suit by A. I. Hogeboom and others against Charles S. Anderson. From a decree for defendant, complainants appeal. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

While the findings and conclusions of a chancellor, where the evidence 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 it to be erroneous.

Where the testimony is conflicting, but there is evidence to support the finding of the chancellor, the decree will not be reversed on the evidence.

Where a bill in equity alleges that the complainants are seised and possessed of certain described lands, and it is sought to restrain the defendant from trespassing upon such lands, and the defendant's answer denies such seisin and possession by the complainants and other material allegations in the bill, it is incumbent upon the complainants to establish their title to the lands and their right to relief by competent evidence, and where at the final hearing upon the pleadings and proofs the circuit judge renders a final decree in favor of the defendant and dismisses the bill, stating in such decree that he was of the opinion that 'the complainants failed to prove such title or right in them as justified an injunction against the acts alleged in the bill sought to be done by the defendant,' an appellate court will not reverse such decree, unless such findings by the circuit judge are clearly shown to be erroneous.

COUNSEL Will H. Price, of Marianna, for appellants.

Paul Carter, of Marianna, for appellee.

OPINION

SHACKLEFORD J.

A. I Hogeboom, A. J. Gay, and W. W. Green filed their bill in chancery against Charles S. Anderson, in which the complainants alleged that they were seised in fee of a certain described parcel of land lying on the bay shore and under the waters of St. Andrew's Bay; that the defendant claimed the ownership of certain described lots which lie contiguous to the land of the complainants; that the defendant, in the nighttime, without the consent or knowledge of the complainants, with a large number of employés and agents, entered upon the land of the complainants and proceeded to construct a wharf and were engaged in continuing such construction, and that the defendant had announced that it was his intention to continue such construction, and also to construct a privy upon such wharf; that such privy, if so constructed, would be directly over and upon the grounds of complainants now used by them for public bathing purposes; and that the defendant, during the same night, also constructed a wire fence along the water front, from 1 1/2 to 2 feet from the water's edge extending from one of the complainants' wharves to another wharf also owned by them, thereby obstructing the complainants' right of access from the complainants' land to the waters of the bay, except over and upon their own wharves.

The foregoing is a very succinct statement of the allegations in the bill. The relief sought was a restraining order, a perpetual injunction, and general...