Edney v. McCaskill

105 So. 821, 90 Fla. 335
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedOctober 16, 1925
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 105 So. 821 (Edney v. McCaskill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Edney v. McCaskill, 105 So. 821, 90 Fla. 335 (Fla. 1925).

Opinion

"West, C. J.

This is an appeal from a final decree rendered by the Circuit Court of Okaloosa County. It involves the right of the complainant, who is the appellee in this court, and her representatives, to an easement over a strip of land, twelve feet in width, lying north of and adjoining certain described lots in Camp Walton, Florida, one of which lots is owned by complainant, by which easement she may be afforded ingress and egress to and from the rear of such lot.

In the brief for appellant it is stated that all the assignments of error raise the question of whether the appellee has made out her case and established, by a preponderance ■of the evidence, her right to any interest or easement in the strip of land in controversy.

The only question to be determined is one of fact. In the brief of appellee the statement is made that the evidence was taken in the presence of the chancellor, and that, after all the witnesses had testified, he, by agreement of counsel, personally examined the premises.

To attempt, in an opinion, a summary of the evidence submitted, would probably give little comfort to counsel, and could, in the nature of things, serve no useful purpose as a precedent, since a future similar case, in essential details, is remote.

There are some conflicts in the evidence, but they are more inferential than direct. And a decree, resting solely *337 on questions of fact, will not be disturbed, unless the evidence shows that it is clearly erroneous. Travis v. Travis, 81 Fla. 309, 87 South. Rep. 762; Hill v. Beacham, 79 Fla. 430, 85 South. Rep. 147; Davidson v. Collier, 75 Fla. 783, 78 South. Rep. 983; Brickell v. Town of Ft. Lauderdale, 75 Fla. 622, 78 South. Rep. 681; Kirkland v. City of Tampa, 75 Fla. 271, 78 South. Rep. 17; Shad. v. Smith, 74 Fla. 324, 76 South. Rep. 897; Simpson v. First National Bank, 74 Fla. 539, 77 South. Rep. 204; Baggett v. Otis, 65 Fla. 447, 62 South. Rep. 362; Millinor v. Thornhill, 63 Fla. 531, 58 South. Rep. 34; Robinson Point Lbr. Co. v. Johnson, 63 Fla. 562, 58 South. Rep. 841; West v. Daniels, 57 Fla. 548, 49 South. Rep. 154; City of Jacksonville v. Huff, 39 Fla. 8.

There is sufficient competent evidence in the record to support the decree, so it must, under the rule announced, be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.

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

Related

Peterson v. Hancock
1 So. 2d 255 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1941)
Meola, Et Ux. v. Sparks, Et Vir.
189 So. 408 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Durham v. Durham
188 So. 609 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Hamilton, Et Ux. v. Rowell
188 So. 94 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Speier v. Speier
187 So. 764 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Brown, Et Ux. v. City of Palatka
181 So. 529 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
Burns, Et Vir v. Campbell
180 So. 46 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
Anderson, Et Vir v. Sandquist Con. Co.
180 So. 372 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
Gilbert v. Gilbert
178 So. 405 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
Fisher v. Grady
178 So. 852 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
Rountree v. Davis
167 So. 820 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
Helland v. Evans
152 So. 623 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1934)
Roland v. Mathews
124 So. 34 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1929)
Burnett El Al. v. Green
122 So. 570 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1929)
Cramer v. Eichelberger
118 So. 737 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1928)
Weaver-Loughridge Lumber Co. v. Kirkland
131 So. 784 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
105 So. 821, 90 Fla. 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edney-v-mccaskill-fla-1925.