Jones v. Nichol

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jones v. Nichol

300 So. 2d 67, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8666

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 12, 1974

DocketNo. U-34

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 300 So. 2d 67 (Jones v. Nichol) 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

Jones v. Nichol, 300 So. 2d 67, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8666 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

JOHNSON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment in which the complaint of the appellants was dismissed, after the taking of testimony from the parties, and in which the trial court found for the appellee under his counterclaim for prayer for foreclosure of appellee’s lien for professional services.

We have reviewed the record, briefs and given due consideration to the arguments of both parties. While we cannot say that the appellee acted in full candor in this matter and that, had we been the trial judge, we may have felt differently, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the trier of facts, the trial court, and inasmuch as there was enough competent evidence, by testimony or admittance by the appellants, to support the finding and conclusion of the trial court, under authority of Richbourg v. Walker, 282 So.2d 651 (Fla.App.1st, 1973), we do hereby affirm.

Because of our view of the testimony of appellee, we do not feel that ap-pellee is entitled to be awarded any sum for attorney’s fees and same are denied.

RAWLS, C. J., and SPECTOR, J., concur.

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

JOHNSON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment in which the complaint of the appellants was dismissed, after the taking of testimony from the parties, and in which the trial court found for the appellee under his counterclaim for prayer for foreclosure of appellee’s lien for professional services.

We have reviewed the record, briefs and given due consideration to the arguments of both parties. While we cannot say that the appellee acted in full candor in this matter and that, had we been the trial judge, we may have felt differently, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the trier of facts, the trial court, and inasmuch as there was enough competent evidence, by testimony or admittance by the appellants, to support the finding and conclusion of the trial court, under authority of Richbourg v. Walker, 282 So.2d 651 (Fla.App.1st, 1973), we do hereby affirm.

Because of our view of the testimony of appellee, we do not feel that ap-pellee is entitled to be awarded any sum for attorney’s fees and same are denied.

RAWLS, C. J., and SPECTOR, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 So. 2d 67, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-nichol-fladistctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack