Sikes v. Overholser, Et Ux.

Supreme Court of Florida

Sikes v. Overholser, Et Ux.

7 So. 2d 348, 150 Fla. 290

DecidedApril 3, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 7 So. 2d 348 (Sikes v. Overholser, Et Ux.) 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

Sikes v. Overholser, Et Ux., 7 So. 2d 348, 150 Fla. 290 (Fla. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

CHAPMAN, J.:

From a final decree of foreclosure entered by the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, an appeal has been perfected to this Court by the plaintiff below. The final decree permitted or allowed the plaintiff to recover for a mortgage and note in the sum of $500.00, less payments, but denied plaintiff below relief for a vendor’s lien on the theory that he had waived the same by the acceptance of the note and mortgage involved in the suit at bar. It is this feature of the final decree that is challenged in this Court.

The appellees contend that the final decree is erroneous because it disallowed certain credits and items appearing in a counter claim filed by the appellees in the lower court. It therefore appears that the appellant and the appellees are dissatisfied with and seek a reversal in this court of the final decree here challenged.

We have read the testimony, the report of the Special Master, the exceptions thereto, and the ruling of the court on the exceptions. The burden is on the appellant to clearly establish reversible error in the record. When the record is considered in its entirety, we are forced to the conclusion that the chancellor below did not err in his rulings in settling the disputes and conflicts appearing in the testimony. The briefs and authorities cited have been duly considered.

The decree appealed from is hereby affirmed.

BROWN, C. J., TERRELL and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

CHAPMAN, J.:

From a final decree of foreclosure entered by the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, an appeal has been perfected to this Court by the plaintiff below. The final decree permitted or allowed the plaintiff to recover for a mortgage and note in the sum of $500.00, less payments, but denied plaintiff below relief for a vendor’s lien on the theory that he had waived the same by the acceptance of the note and mortgage involved in the suit at bar. It is this feature of the final decree that is challenged in this Court.

The appellees contend that the final decree is erroneous because it disallowed certain credits and items appearing in a counter claim filed by the appellees in the lower court. It therefore appears that the appellant and the appellees are dissatisfied with and seek a reversal in this court of the final decree here challenged.

We have read the testimony, the report of the Special Master, the exceptions thereto, and the ruling of the court on the exceptions. The burden is on the appellant to clearly establish reversible error in the record. When the record is considered in its entirety, we are forced to the conclusion that the chancellor below did not err in his rulings in settling the disputes and conflicts appearing in the testimony. The briefs and authorities cited have been duly considered.

The decree appealed from is hereby affirmed.

BROWN, C. J., TERRELL and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 So. 2d 348, 150 Fla. 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sikes-v-overholser-et-ux-fla-1942.