TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Yaeger-Stuckey Live Stock Co. v. Florida Pecan Endowment Co.

Yaeger-Stuckey Live Stock Company, a Corporation v. Florida Pecan Endowment Company, a Corporation

Yaeger-Stuckey Live Stock Co. v. Fla. Pecan Endowment Co., 82 So. 234 (Fla. 1919)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Florida · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 26, 1919
Judges
Browne, Ellis, Taylor, West, Whitfield
Citations
82 So. 23477 Fla. 735
Disposition
Decree affirmed.
Headnotes
Where the testimony is conflicting and there is ample evidence to support the finding of the chancellor, the decree will not he reversed on- the evidence.
Summary
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County; E. C. Love, Judge.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Browne

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Browne, C. J.

— The appellant seeks by injucntion to restrain appellee from closing to the public a gate opening from a plantation road to a public road in Leon County. A temporary restraining order was granted, which, on final hearing, was dissolved and perpetual injunction refused.

The first assignment of error is that the “court erred in holding that the act of the Legislature of 1917, Chapter 7326, was unconstitutional and void.” This question although raised by the pleadings and discussed in the briefs was not decided by the court below, nor was its determination necessary to the proper disposition of the cause. We, therefore, do not pass on the question.

The finding of the court below was that “the complainant has not sustained the material allegations of his bill *736 of complaint pnt in issue by the defendant’s answer by a preponderance of tbe evidence submitted.” The case was disposed of solely on the evidence. After a careful examination of the record, we cannot say that there was not ample evidence to support the finding of the chancellor.

It is a well-settled rule that where the testimony is conflicting, but there is ample evidence to support the finding of the chancellor, the decree will not be reversed on the evidence. Sheppard v. Crowley, 61 Fla. 735 , 55 South. Rep. 841 ; Alies v. Diaz, 62 Fla. 421 , 57 South. Rep. 614 ; Gillett v. Beachman, 63 Fla. 438 , 57 South. Rep. 615 ; Millinor v. Thornhill, 63 Fla. 531 , 58 South. Rep. 34 .

The decree is affirmed.

Taylor,. Whitfield, Ellis and West, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Sheppard v. Crowley, 61 Fla. 735 (1911) 23
Millinor v. Thornhill, 63 Fla. 531 (1912) 11
Alles v. Diaz, 62 Fla. 421 (1911) 4
Gillett v. Beachman, 63 Fla. 438 (1912) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list