MacNeill v. Marks

Supreme Court of Florida

MacNeill v. Marks

64 So. 2d 922, 1953 Fla. LEXIS 1256

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedMay 5, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 64 So. 2d 922 (MacNeill v. Marks) 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

MacNeill v. Marks, 64 So. 2d 922, 1953 Fla. LEXIS 1256 (Fla. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

MATHEWS, Justice.

A final decree was entered on a creditor’s bill and bill for discovery of assets of the husband against whom the appellant held a judgment.

After voluminous testimony was taken before a Special Master, appointed at the request of the appellant, he filed his report and found from the testimony that Kate Marks, purchased the property being sued upon from funds accummulated by her through previous real estate transactions as a free dealer. Exceptions to the report were filed by the appellant and the Chancellor entered an order denying the exceptions. Thereafter the final decree was entered based upon the bill, answer, testimony, and report of the Special Master, finding that the property was purchased with funds of the wife and not with funds sif the husband, and dismissing the bill of complaint. No purpose could be served by a recital of the testimony. The report of the Master and the final decree of the Chancellor were based upon questions of fact and from conflicting testimony. There was sufficient testimony in the record to justify the conclusions and findings of the Master and of the Chancellor, and that Kate Marks had sustained the burden placed upon her.

This case is controlled by the cases of Thompson v. Field, Fla., 54 So.2d 520, Bethea v. Langford, Fla., 45 So.2d 496, and Ball v. Ball, 160 Fla. 601, 36 So.2d 172.

Affirmed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and DREW, JJ., concur.

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

MATHEWS, Justice.

A final decree was entered on a creditor’s bill and bill for discovery of assets of the husband against whom the appellant held a judgment.

After voluminous testimony was taken before a Special Master, appointed at the request of the appellant, he filed his report and found from the testimony that Kate Marks, purchased the property being sued upon from funds accummulated by her through previous real estate transactions as a free dealer. Exceptions to the report were filed by the appellant and the Chancellor entered an order denying the exceptions. Thereafter the final decree was entered based upon the bill, answer, testimony, and report of the Special Master, finding that the property was purchased with funds of the wife and not with funds sif the husband, and dismissing the bill of complaint. No purpose could be served by a recital of the testimony. The report of the Master and the final decree of the Chancellor were based upon questions of fact and from conflicting testimony. There was sufficient testimony in the record to justify the conclusions and findings of the Master and of the Chancellor, and that Kate Marks had sustained the burden placed upon her.

This case is controlled by the cases of Thompson v. Field, Fla., 54 So.2d 520, Bethea v. Langford, Fla., 45 So.2d 496, and Ball v. Ball, 160 Fla. 601, 36 So.2d 172.

Affirmed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and DREW, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 So. 2d 922, 1953 Fla. LEXIS 1256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macneill-v-marks-fla-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack