Medlin v. Share

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Medlin v. Share

151 So. 2d 451, 1963 Fla. App. LEXIS 3540

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 2, 1963

DocketNo. 62-245

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 151 So. 2d 451 (Medlin v. Share) 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

Medlin v. Share, 151 So. 2d 451, 1963 Fla. App. LEXIS 3540 (Fla. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

HORTON, Judge.

Two mortgage foreclosure proceedings were consolidated for trial. This is an appeal from a final decree which, inter alia, subordinated, the appellant’s chattel mortgage on certain machinery and equipment to the appellee’s chattel mortgage.

The facts of this case are quite involved and we see no reason to delineate them here. Suffice it to say that we have carefully reviewed the record and considered the assignments of error and find that no harmful error has been committed. All of the points raised by the appellant are dependent upon issues of fact resolved adversely to him by the chancellor. It is a well settled rule that where the evidence is heard by the chancellor and the witnesses are before him, his findings based upon conflicting evidence should not be disturbed by an appellate court if the record contains substantial testimony to sustain the decree. Di Marco v. King, Fla.App. 1962, 139 So.2d 750; Cowen v. Cowen, Fla.1957, 95 So.2d 584; Thompson v. Field, Fla. 1951, 54 So.2d 520. Although we find much of the evidence in this case to be conflicting, it is our view that the record contains ample evidence to sustain the chancellor’s decree.

Accordingly, the decree appealed is affirmed.

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

HORTON, Judge.

Two mortgage foreclosure proceedings were consolidated for trial. This is an appeal from a final decree which, inter alia, subordinated, the appellant’s chattel mortgage on certain machinery and equipment to the appellee’s chattel mortgage.

The facts of this case are quite involved and we see no reason to delineate them here. Suffice it to say that we have carefully reviewed the record and considered the assignments of error and find that no harmful error has been committed. All of the points raised by the appellant are dependent upon issues of fact resolved adversely to him by the chancellor. It is a well settled rule that where the evidence is heard by the chancellor and the witnesses are before him, his findings based upon conflicting evidence should not be disturbed by an appellate court if the record contains substantial testimony to sustain the decree. Di Marco v. King, Fla.App. 1962, 139 So.2d 750; Cowen v. Cowen, Fla.1957, 95 So.2d 584; Thompson v. Field, Fla. 1951, 54 So.2d 520. Although we find much of the evidence in this case to be conflicting, it is our view that the record contains ample evidence to sustain the chancellor’s decree.

Accordingly, the decree appealed is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 So. 2d 451, 1963 Fla. App. LEXIS 3540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/medlin-v-share-fladistctapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack