Stringfellow v. Adams

Decision Date24 March 1930
Citation127 So. 338,99 Fla. 623
PartiesSTRINGFELLOW et al. v. ADAMS et al.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Suit by Willie Adams Stringfellow and husband against Dorothy Adams and others. Decree of dismissal, and complainants appeal.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; W. S Bullock, judge.

COUNSEL

Thomas W. Fielding, of Gainesville, for appellants.

Hampton & Greene and Martin & Hocker, all of Ocala, for appellees.

OPINION

BUFORD J.

This was a suit to cancel a deed. The bill of complaint after setting forth in detail the alleged facts and circumstances in connection with the execution and delivery of the deed sought to be canceled alleges:

'That the said pretended deed that is mentioned in the fifth paragraph in this bill was made wholly without consideration, other than that of the alleged 'natural love and affection which the party of the first part bears to the party of the second part, who is her grand-daughter'; and complainants aver that such expressed consideration was not correct, and was not the moving cause for the execution of the said pretended deed but that the said pretended deed was not in truth and in fact the deed of the said Dorothy C. Edwards. And complainants show that the said pretended deed was and is no deed, and it did not convey the title of the said Dorothy C. Edwards to the said minor child of R. T. Adams, the said Dorothy Adams, and that said deed is a nullity and is because that alleged deed was obtained from said Dorothy C. Edwards by improper influences, unlawful influences and undue influences that were exerted upon the weak, impaired, diseased and unsound mind of the said Dorothy C. Edwards by her son the said R. T. Adams, and by his family as aforesaid, and including the said Mary Boyd, the sister of the said Dorothy C. Edwards.'

There were about 600 pages of testimony and exhibits as shown here by the transcript of record. On final hearing, the chancellor in his findings, amongst other things, says:

'I find that the complainants have not sustained by competent proof the allegations of their bill and are not entitled to any relief that is asked, and the bill should be dismissed at the cost of the complainants.'

The final decree from which the appeal is taken was:

'It is considered and ordered that the complainants have not sustained their bill, and are not entitled to any relief prayed, and

'It is considered and ordered that the bill be and the same is dismissed at the cost of the complainant.'

Besides the main assignment of error which is based upon the court entering the final decree above referred to, there are (6) of what is termed 'sub-assignments of error,' which are addressed to different rulings of the court made during the progress of the cause. Under the provisions of section 4499 C. G. L. 1927, section 2812 R. G. S., this court has repeatedly held that a judgment should not be reversed or a new trial granted in any case, civil or criminal, for errors in rulings upon the admission or rejection of evidence, or for errors in giving or refusing charges, or for errors in any other matter of procedure or practice, unless it shall appear to the court from a consideration of the entire cause that such errors injuriously affect the substantial rights of the complaining party. Johnson v. State, 80 Fla. 61, 85 So. 155; Shuler v. State, 84 Fla. 414, 63 So. 672; Ellis v. State, 86 Fla. 56, 97 So. 287; Henderson v. State, 94 Fla. 318, 113 So. 689.

While the statute above referred to applies in terms to civil and criminal cases, it is but a restatement of the rule which has long obtained in chancery causes and, therefore, merely extends the rule to other causes. Travis v. Travis, 81 Fla. 309, 87 So. 762; Hill v. Beacham, 79 Fla 430, 85 So. 147; Patrick v. Kirkland, 53 Fla. 768, 43 So. 969, 125 Am. St. Rep. 1096, 12 Ann. Cas. 540; Holmberg v. Hardee, 90 Fla. 787, 108 So. 211; Fielding v. First National...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Morgan, 67--1005
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 20, 1968
    ...merely be harmless, as the proposed testimony was of a cumulative nature. Groover v. Hammond, 73 Fla. 1155, 75 So. 857; Stringfellow v. Adams, 99 Fla. 623, 127 So. 338; BCK Land, Inc. v. Cook, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 717; § 924.33, Fla.Stat. F.S.A. The other proffer, which it is alleged the......
  • Thomas v. Thompson
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • April 11, 1934
    ... ... 914; City of Ocoee v. West, 102 Fla. 277, 130 Fla ... 9; Fulton v. Clowiston, Limited, 100 Fla. 257, 129 ... So. 773; Stringfellow v. Adams, 99 Fla. 623, 127 So ... 338; Jordan v. Jordan, 100 Fla. 1586, 132 So. 466; ... Meloche v. Meloche, 101 Fla. 659, 133 So. 339, 140 ... ...
  • BCK Land, Inc. v. Cook, 1546
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 20, 1960
    ...for reversal and that rulings on evidence do not require reversal or new trial unless affecting substantial rights. Stringfellow v. Adams, 99 Fla. 623, 127 So. 338; Graham v. Holmes, 73 Fla. 85, 74 So. 5; Groover v. Hammond, 73 Fla. 1155, 75 So. 857; Prince v. Aucilla River Naval Stores Co.......
  • Esch v. Forster
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • April 2, 1930
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT