Fisher v. Villamil

Supreme Court of Florida

Fisher v. Villamil

62 So. 481, 65 Fla. 488

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJune 3, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 62 So. 481 (Fisher v. Villamil) 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

Fisher v. Villamil, 62 So. 481, 65 Fla. 488 (Fla. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Cockrell, J.

Upon a former appeal in this case, 62 Fla. 472, 56 South. Rep. 559, we held that it was error to reform a master’s deed, but that it would be permissible to cancel the deed, reform the mortgage and reinforce it by judicial decree; this was done upon an amended bill and the defendants again appeal.

The amended bill was properly filed, as being in entire accord with the ruling of this court and being merely a narrowing of the prayer for relief cannot possibly be held to make an entirely new case. In fact it was agreed by the parties that no new evidence be taken, and that the evidence on the original bill stand as to evidence on the amended bill.

As to whether the evidence warranted the finding that the mistake in the description of the lands embraced was an innocent one and such as would justify a reformation in a court of equity, we cannot hold the decree erroneous. Two Circuit Judges, resident in the community, familiar with the character of the witnesses, have found the same way upon the same testimony, and we cannot say on this record they should have done differently.

Decree affirmed.

Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur

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

Cockrell, J.

Upon a former appeal in this case, 62 Fla. 472, 56 South. Rep. 559, we held that it was error to reform a master’s deed, but that it would be permissible to cancel the deed, reform the mortgage and reinforce it by judicial decree; this was done upon an amended bill and the defendants again appeal.

The amended bill was properly filed, as being in entire accord with the ruling of this court and being merely a narrowing of the prayer for relief cannot possibly be held to make an entirely new case. In fact it was agreed by the parties that no new evidence be taken, and that the evidence on the original bill stand as to evidence on the amended bill.

As to whether the evidence warranted the finding that the mistake in the description of the lands embraced was an innocent one and such as would justify a reformation in a court of equity, we cannot hold the decree erroneous. Two Circuit Judges, resident in the community, familiar with the character of the witnesses, have found the same way upon the same testimony, and we cannot say on this record they should have done differently.

Decree affirmed.

Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 So. 481, 65 Fla. 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fisher-v-villamil-fla-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack