Tatum Bros. Real Estate & Investment Co. v. Osborn

83 So. 703, 79 Fla. 130
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided February 5, 1920·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Horne, Circuit Judge

-In this case there is an issue of fact, and as is usual there is a conflict in the evidence. The chancellor found for the defendants, and his finding not being clearly erroneous should not be disturbed. Sheppard v. Crowley, 61 Fla. 735, 55 South. Rep. 841; Robinson Point Lumber Co. v. Johnson, 63 Fla. 562, 58 South. Rep. 841; Millinor v. Thornhill, 63 Fla. 531, 58 South. Rep. 34; Dixie Naval Stores Co. v. German-American Lumber Co., 76 Fla. 339, 79 South. Rep. 836.

The decree is affirmed at the cost of appellant.

Per Curiam. — The record in this cause having been considered by this court, and the foregoing opinion prepared under Chapter 7837, Acts of 1919, adopted by the court as its opinion, it is considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that the decree herein be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.

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

Tatum Bros. Real Estate & Investment Co. v. Osborn, 83 So. 703, 79 Fla. 130 (Fla. 1920).

83 So. 703 (Tatum Bros. Real Estate & Investment Co. v. Osborn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Marcus v. Hull
195 So. 170 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Burnett, Tax Collector v. Greene
144 So. 205 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)
Burnett v. Greene
144 So. 205 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)
Day Et Ux. v. Weadock
134 So. 525 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)
Travis v. Travis
87 So. 762 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1921)