Belin v. Sanchez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Belin v. Sanchez

101 So. 2d 64

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 27, 1958

DocketNo. 57-302

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 101 So. 2d 64 (Belin v. Sanchez) 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

Belin v. Sanchez, 101 So. 2d 64 (Fla. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

DREW, E. HARRIS, Associate Judge.

The trial court awarded the plaintiff in this bastardy action a judgment in the amount prescribed in the statute (Chapter 742, F.S.A.) and substantial attorneys’ fees. Both awards are before us on appeal.

The learned chancellor saw and observed all these people (neither party having requested a jury trial — Sec. 742.031, F.S.A.) and concluded that the evidence was legally sufficient to prove that the defendant was the father of the child. There was competent, substantial evidence in the record to sustain him — and he did not misconstrue its legal effect. The award to the plaintiff is therefore affirmed.

The cross assignment of errqr questioning the sufficiency of the award of attorneys’ fees is without merit. We hold the award was sufficient for the services rendered.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON, J., concur.

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

DREW, E. HARRIS, Associate Judge.

The trial court awarded the plaintiff in this bastardy action a judgment in the amount prescribed in the statute (Chapter 742, F.S.A.) and substantial attorneys’ fees. Both awards are before us on appeal.

The learned chancellor saw and observed all these people (neither party having requested a jury trial — Sec. 742.031, F.S.A.) and concluded that the evidence was legally sufficient to prove that the defendant was the father of the child. There was competent, substantial evidence in the record to sustain him — and he did not misconstrue its legal effect. The award to the plaintiff is therefore affirmed.

The cross assignment of errqr questioning the sufficiency of the award of attorneys’ fees is without merit. We hold the award was sufficient for the services rendered.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 So. 2d 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belin-v-sanchez-fladistctapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack