Harvey v. Palmer

97 So. 429, 86 Fla. 159
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided July 14, 1923·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This appeal presents for review a final decree of the Court below and involves a question of fact [160] only. There is conflict in the evidence, but there is in the record ample evidence to sustain the decree of the chancellor. Upon the familiar principle that where testimony is conflicting, but there is evidence sufficient to support the finding of the chancellor upon questions of fact, the decree will not be reversed unless it clearly appears to be erroneous, .the decree in this case will be affirmed. Smith v. Dowling, 81 Fla. 867, 89 South. Rep. 315; Travis v. Travis, 81 Fla. 309, 87 South. Rep. 762; Hill v. Beacham, 79 Fla. 430, 85 South. Rep. 147; Douglass v. Ogle, 80 Fla. 42, 85 South. Rep. 243; Whidden v. Rogers, 78 Fla. 93, 82 South. Rep. 611; Boyd v. Gosser, 78 Fla. 64, 82 South. Rep. 758, 6 A. L. R. 500.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, West and Terrell, J. J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Ellis and Browne, J. J., concur in the opinion.

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

Harvey v. Palmer, 97 So. 429, 86 Fla. 159 (Fla. 1923).

97 So. 429 (Harvey v. Palmer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Boyd v. Gosser
82 So. 758 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1918)
Boyd v. Gosser
82 So. 758 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1919)
Whidden v. Rogers
82 So. 611 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1919)
Hill v. Beacham
85 So. 147 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1920)
Douglas v. Ogle
85 So. 243 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1920)
Travis v. Travis
87 So. 762 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1921)
Smith v. Dowling
89 So. 315 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1921)