Jacksonville Properties, Inc. v. Manhattan Beach Co.

136 So. 506, 102 Fla. 839
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided August 7, 1931·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

— The questions presented for review in this appeal challenge the correctness of the decree of the chancellor as to matters therein contained which are based on findings of fact. There appears in the record sufficient substantial evidence to constitute a logical basis for each of the findings complained of. The decree should, therefore, be affirmed. Kreher vs. Morley, 84 Fla. 121, 92 Sou. 686, and cases there cited; Lassiter vs. Long, 85 Fla. 439, 96 Sou. 841; Summers vs. Apalachicola Northern Ry. Co., 85 Fla. 9, 96 Sou. 151; Kirkland vs. Hutto, 85 Fla. 82, 95 Sou. *840 429; Morton vs. Baya, 88 Fla. 1, 102 Sou. 361; Sirkin vs. Schupler, 90 Fla. 68, 105 Sou. 151. It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.

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

Jacksonville Properties, Inc. v. Manhattan Beach Co., 136 So. 506, 102 Fla. 839 (Fla. 1931).

136 So. 506 (Jacksonville Properties, Inc. v. Manhattan Beach Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Deauville Casino Corp. v. Miami Beach Furnished Homes Corp.
150 So. 226 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1933)
Washington Loan & Trust Co. v. Hutchinson
144 So. 343 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1932)