Amott v. Ney

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Amott v. Ney

189 So. 2d 379

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 11, 1966

DocketNo. H-176

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 189 So. 2d 379 (Amott v. Ney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amott v. Ney, 189 So. 2d 379 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff has appealed a final decree rendered in a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell realty in which the equities of the cause are found to he in favor of defendant, specific performance denied, and the cause dismissed at the cost of plaintiff.

The cause has been orally argued before the court and the briefs and record on appeal have been read and given full consideration. The pivotal point on appeal challenges the correctness of the decree on the ground that it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and justice of the cause. We have carefully reviewed the record in light of the contentions of the respective parties and find substantial evidence which, when considered in a light most favorable to appellees, is sufficient to support the conclusion reached by the chancellor in the exercise of his lawful discretion. Appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the decree appealed is affirmed. See Bliss v. Hallock, (Fla.App.1959) 113 So.2d 889; Topper v. Alcazar Operating Co., 160 Fla. 421, 35 So.2d 392; Witham v. Shepard, 84 Fla. 75, 92 So. 685.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SACK, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff has appealed a final decree rendered in a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell realty in which the equities of the cause are found to he in favor of defendant, specific performance denied, and the cause dismissed at the cost of plaintiff.

The cause has been orally argued before the court and the briefs and record on appeal have been read and given full consideration. The pivotal point on appeal challenges the correctness of the decree on the ground that it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and justice of the cause. We have carefully reviewed the record in light of the contentions of the respective parties and find substantial evidence which, when considered in a light most favorable to appellees, is sufficient to support the conclusion reached by the chancellor in the exercise of his lawful discretion. Appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the decree appealed is affirmed. See Bliss v. Hallock, (Fla.App.1959) 113 So.2d 889; Topper v. Alcazar Operating Co., 160 Fla. 421, 35 So.2d 392; Witham v. Shepard, 84 Fla. 75, 92 So. 685.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SACK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 So. 2d 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amott-v-ney-fladistctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack