Mercer v. Mercer

Supreme Court of Florida

Mercer v. Mercer

41 So. 2d 318, 1949 Fla. LEXIS 747

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJune 24, 1949

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 So. 2d 318 (Mercer v. Mercer) 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

Mercer v. Mercer, 41 So. 2d 318, 1949 Fla. LEXIS 747 (Fla. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Suit between T. Homer Mercer and Olive V. Mercer. From an adverse decree, T. Homer Mercer appeals.

Affirmed. An able Chancellor personally heard the evidence which was introduced in this cause. He observed the witnesses, their demeanor on the witness stand and carefully and correctly appraised the testimony.

Error has not been made clearly apparent. There is substantial evidence in the transcript of record which sustains the Chancellor's findings and his order or judgment predicated thereon. Appropriate case law from this and other jurisdictions was applied by the Chancellor to the facts of this case. Stigletts v. McDonald, 135 Fla. 385, 186 So. 233; Hamilton v. Laesch, 134 Fla. 591, 184 So. 110; Eldridge v. Eldridge, 153 Fla. 873, 16 So.2d 163; Blanton v. Blanton, 154 Fla. 750, 18 So.2d 902; Nelson v. State ex rel. Quigg, 156 Fla. 189, 23 So.2d 136; City of Miami et al. v. C.O. Huttoe, Fla. 38 So.2d 819 and Blanchard et al. v. McCord, et al., Fla., 40 So.2d 457. See also Hartman v. Hartman, Tex.Civ. App., 32 S.W.2d 234; Helmbold v. Helmbold, 127 Misc. 761, 217 N.Y.S. 379; Campbell v. Campbell, 37 Wis. 206; Tillinghast v. Clay, 152 Ga. 816, 111 S.E. 384 and Feinberg v. Feinberg, 72 N.J. Eq. 810, 66 A. 610.

A study of the entire record, including the judgment which contains the chancellor's findings, leads us to the conclusion that the judgment, from which this appeal was prosecuted, should be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

ADAMS, C.J., and CHAPMAN and SEBRING, JJ., concur.

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

Suit between T. Homer Mercer and Olive V. Mercer. From an adverse decree, T. Homer Mercer appeals.

Affirmed. An able Chancellor personally heard the evidence which was introduced in this cause. He observed the witnesses, their demeanor on the witness stand and carefully and correctly appraised the testimony.

Error has not been made clearly apparent. There is substantial evidence in the transcript of record which sustains the Chancellor's findings and his order or judgment predicated thereon. Appropriate case law from this and other jurisdictions was applied by the Chancellor to the facts of this case. Stigletts v. McDonald, 135 Fla. 385, 186 So. 233; Hamilton v. Laesch, 134 Fla. 591, 184 So. 110; Eldridge v. Eldridge, 153 Fla. 873, 16 So.2d 163; Blanton v. Blanton, 154 Fla. 750, 18 So.2d 902; Nelson v. State ex rel. Quigg, 156 Fla. 189, 23 So.2d 136; City of Miami et al. v. C.O. Huttoe, Fla. 38 So.2d 819 and Blanchard et al. v. McCord, et al., Fla., 40 So.2d 457. See also Hartman v. Hartman, Tex.Civ. App., 32 S.W.2d 234; Helmbold v. Helmbold, 127 Misc. 761, 217 N.Y.S. 379; Campbell v. Campbell, 37 Wis. 206; Tillinghast v. Clay, 152 Ga. 816, 111 S.E. 384 and Feinberg v. Feinberg, 72 N.J. Eq. 810, 66 A. 610.

A study of the entire record, including the judgment which contains the chancellor's findings, leads us to the conclusion that the judgment, from which this appeal was prosecuted, should be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

ADAMS, C.J., and CHAPMAN and SEBRING, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 So. 2d 318, 1949 Fla. LEXIS 747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mercer-v-mercer-fla-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack