Kells v. Davidson

Supreme Court of Florida

Kells v. Davidson

168 So. 915, 124 Fla. 242, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 1094

DecidedMay 6, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 168 So. 915 (Kells v. Davidson) 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

Kells v. Davidson, 168 So. 915, 124 Fla. 242, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 1094 (Fla. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a final decree of foreclosure, and from the subsequent decree of confirma *243 tion of sale and allowance of deficiency judgment. The Chancellor rendered a careful finding of facts upon which the final decree was predicated. The case has been ably briefed and orally argued. But no new questions of law are involved, the decision of the court below being based upon the application of well settled principles to the facts found by the Chancellor. We are convinced that neither these findings, nor the conclusions reached by the Chancellor from the evidence, should be disturbed. No practical purpose would be subserved by a delineation of the facts of the case, nor a restatement of the already settled legal principles applicable thereto. Our conclusion is that this long-drawn-out litigation has been finally and correctly decided by the court below, and the decrees and orders appealed from are accordingly

Affirmed.

Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J. J., concur. Buford, J., not participating.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a final decree of foreclosure, and from the subsequent decree of confirma *243 tion of sale and allowance of deficiency judgment. The Chancellor rendered a careful finding of facts upon which the final decree was predicated. The case has been ably briefed and orally argued. But no new questions of law are involved, the decision of the court below being based upon the application of well settled principles to the facts found by the Chancellor. We are convinced that neither these findings, nor the conclusions reached by the Chancellor from the evidence, should be disturbed. No practical purpose would be subserved by a delineation of the facts of the case, nor a restatement of the already settled legal principles applicable thereto. Our conclusion is that this long-drawn-out litigation has been finally and correctly decided by the court below, and the decrees and orders appealed from are accordingly

Affirmed.

Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J. J., concur. Buford, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 So. 915, 124 Fla. 242, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 1094, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kells-v-davidson-fla-1936.