From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Calhoun v. Abstract Company of Sarasota

Supreme Court of Florida, Special Division B
Feb 14, 1950
44 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1950)

Opinion

January 24, 1950. Rehearing Denied February 14, 1950.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County, Lynn, Gerald, J.

Clyde H. Wilson and Randolph Calhoun, Sarasota, for appellant.

Williams Dart, Sarasota, for Abstract Company of Sarasota and Evans Glenn, Sarasota, for Howard Gray, appellees.


We have examined the record and the briefs in this cause and have heard the able argument of counsel at the bar of this court. It is well settled that the Chancellor's findings should not be disturbed on appeal unless shown to be clearly erroneous. Willis v. Van Woy et al., 155 Fla. 465, 20 So.2d 690; Farrington v. Harrison, 95 Fla. 769, 116 So. 497; Daino v. Daino, 155 Fla. 886, 22 So.2d 253.

It has not been made clearly to appear that the findings of the Chancellor are erroneous or that he abused his discretion or that there is not testimony in the record to sustain his conclusions.

The decree appealed from is, accordingly, affirmed.

ADAMS, C.J., and TERRELL, CHAPMAN and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Calhoun v. Abstract Company of Sarasota

Supreme Court of Florida, Special Division B
Feb 14, 1950
44 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1950)
Case details for

Calhoun v. Abstract Company of Sarasota

Case Details

Full title:CALHOUN v. ABSTRACT COMPANY OF SARASOTA ET AL

Court:Supreme Court of Florida, Special Division B

Date published: Feb 14, 1950

Citations

44 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1950)

Citing Cases

Petersen v. Petersen

"The master's findings have not been shown to be clearly erroneous. See Calhoun v. Abstract Company of…

Gulf Coast Docks, Inc. v. Simon

The master's findings have not been shown to be clearly erroneous. See Calhoun v. Abstract Company of…