Yearty, Et Vir. v. Smith

162 So. 510, 120 Fla. 202
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided June 24, 1935·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant, at the beginning of his brief, states:

“1. Broadly it is sought by the appeal to have a reconsideration of the evidence with view. to reversal of the findings • disclosed by the final decree so that the questions for consideration will deal with sufficiency of evidence before the trial court to sustain the Chancellor in his decree.”

*203 There appear nine other paragraphs of questions sought to be presented but the first question above quoted is the controlling factor in each of the other questions stated.

There is' disclosed in the record substantial evidence to support the final decree and, therefore, following the long established rule applicable in such cases, the decree will not be reversed but must be affirmed.

It is so ordered. .

Affirmed.

Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

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

Yearty, Et Vir. v. Smith, 162 So. 510, 120 Fla. 202 (Fla. 1935).

162 So. 510 (Yearty, Et Vir. v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kamenesh v. City of Miami
772 F. Supp. 583 (S.D. Florida, 1991)
Dearing v. Reese
519 So. 2d 761 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Jones
294 F.2d 495 (Fifth Circuit, 1961)
Baker v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
212 F.2d 130 (Fifth Circuit, 1954)
Bastine v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co
205 F.2d 457 (Fifth Circuit, 1953)
Neel v. Mayo
172 So. 84 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)