Stringfellow v. Adams
Decision Date | 24 March 1930 |
Citation | 127 So. 338,99 Fla. 623 |
Parties | STRINGFELLOW et al. v. ADAMS et al. |
Court | Florida 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.
Thomas W. Fielding, of Gainesville, for appellants.
Hampton & Greene and Martin & Hocker, all of Ocala, for appellees.
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:
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 Bank, 76 Fla. 545, 80 So. 308.
It may be generally stated that error without injury...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Morgan, 67--1005
...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
... ... 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
...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