Mock v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 23 November 1909 |
| Citation | 50 So. 673,58 Fla. 477 |
| Parties | MOCK et al. v. THOMPSON. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Washington County; J. E. Wolfe, Judge.
Bill by Green B. Thompson against H. H. Mock and others. Decree for complainant, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
While the findings and conclusions of a chancellor, where the testimony is not taken before him, but before an examiner or master, and the chancellor is not afforded the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses, are not entitled to the same weight as the verdict of a jury, and are not so conclusive, 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 at law, every presumption is in favor of the correctness of the ruling of the trial judge, and a decree based largely or solely upon questions of fact will not be reversed, unless the evidence clearly shows that it was erroneous.
COUNSEL Liddon & Carter, for appellants.
W. B Farley, for appellee.
The appellee, as complainant, filed his bill in equity against the appellants, as defendants, in which he sought the cancellation of two certain deeds of conveyance, purporting to have been executed by the complainant to Mrs. L. E. Mock one of the appellants, as well as the cancellation of a certain deed of conveyance from Mrs. L. E. Mock and her husband, H. H. Mock, to Ira A. Hutchinson, their codefendant an injunction, and general relief. A joint answer was filed by H. H. Mock and L. E. Mock, and a separate answer by Ira A Hutchinson, denying practically all the material allegations in the bill. The two Mocks also filed a cross-bill, to which the complainant filed an answer, general replications were filed, and an order was made appointing a special master to take the testimony of the respective parties. Temporary injunctions or restraining orders were issued, both against the defendants and the complainant. Voluminous testimony was taken before such special master, and the cause came on for final hearing upon the pleadings and such testimony, at which hearing a final decree was rendered to the effect that all the equities were with the complainant, that he was entitled to the relief prayed, and that the defendants were not entitled to the relief sought by their cross-bill. The temporary injunction against the complainant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beach v. Kirk
...See Farrington v. Harrison, 95 Fla. 769, 116 So. 497; Atlantic Bank, etc., Co. v. Sengstak, 95 Fla. 606, 116 So. 267; Mock v. Thompson, 58 Fla. 477, 50 So. 673; v. Wade, 43 Fla. 419, 31 So. 231; Kent v. Knowles, 101 Fla. 1375, 133 So. 315, 317. We have given consideration to the entire reco......
-
Okeechobee County v. Florida Nat. Bank of Jacksonville
... ... See ... Farrington v. Harrison, 95 Fla. 769, 116 So. 497; Atlantic ... Bank, etc., Co. v. Sengstak, 95 Fla. 606, 116 So. 267; Mock ... v. Thompson, 58 Fla. 477, 50 So. 673; ... [1 So.2d 274] ... Lucas v. Wade, 43 Fla. 419, 31 So. 231; Kent v. Knowles, 101 ... Fla. 1375, 133 ... ...
-
Bowery v. Babbit
... ... Fla. 1159] erroneous. Roland v. Mathews (Fla.) 124 ... So. 34; Atlantic Bank & Tr. Co. v. Sengstak, 95 Fla ... 606, 116 So. 267; Mock v. Thompson, 58 Fla. 477, 50 ... So. 673; and numberous other Florida cases ... In the ... case now here, we cannot say from the ... ...
-
Century Trust Co. of Baltimore v. Allison Realty Co.
...Babbit, supra; Roland v. Mathews, 98 Fla. 695, 124 So. 34; Atlantic Bank & Trust Co. v. Sengstak, 95 Fla. 606, 116 So. 267; Mock v. Thompson, 58 Fla. 477, 50 So. 673. appears from the testimony of Mr. Weaver, an official of the corporation that had the contract, that the last pay roll was m......