Millinor v. Thornhill

• Citation: 63 Fla. 531,58 So. 34
• Parties: MILLINOR v. THORNHILL.
• Decision Date: 01 March 1912
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

58 So. 34

63 Fla. 531

MILLINOR v. THORNHILL.

Florida Supreme Court

March 1, 1912

Appeal from Circuit Court, Suwanee County; Ira J. Carter, Judge.

Bill in equity by Charles Thornhill against R. L. Millinor. From a decree for complainant, defendant appeals. 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.

COUNSEL Davis & Whitnell, for appellant.

L. E Roberson, for appellee.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Thornhill brought a suit for the cancellation of a deed of conveyance to lands which purported to have been made by him and his wife; the grounds for equitable relief being alleged imposition upon the complainant, an ignorant and illiterate colored man, and that the wife did not join in the pretended conveyance, which the evidence shows to be of the homestead.

An answer was filed by Millinor, denying the allegations of the bill of complaint, and testimony was taken before an examiner. The court found for the complainant and decreed accordingly.

On appeal, the defendant argues that the testimony does not sustain the decree, and suggests laches.

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,...