Supreme Court of Florida, 1928

Atlantic Bank & Trust Co. v. Sengstak

Supreme Court of Florida · Decided March 28, 1928 · Whitfield, Terrell, Buford, Ellis, Strum, Brown

116 So. 267; 95 Fla. 606 (Southern Reporter)

Cases that cite this one

23 later published cases cite this decision.

Dudley v. Wilson (Fla. 1943)
Butts v. Butts (Fla. 1940)
Tampa Theatre Bldg., Inc. v. City of Tampa, El Al. (Fla. 1940)
Kart v. Kart (Fla. 1940)
City of Miami Beach v. the Texas Co. (Fla. 1940)
County of Okeechobee v. Florida National Bank (Fla. 1940)
Sheldon v. Wilfore (Fla. 1939)
Riesner v. Riesner (Fla. 1939)
Reaves v. Sadler (Fla. 1939)
Schomberg v. Schomberg (Fla. 1939)
Reed v. Jones (Fla. 1938)
State v. County of Hillsborough (Fla. 1938)
State v. Counties of St. Lucie, Okeechobee (Fla. 1938)
Beach, Et Ux. v. Kirk (Fla. 1938)
Miami Bottled Gas, Inc. v. Dri-Gas Corp. (Fla. 1938)
Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. v. Smith (Fla. 1938)
Stengel v. Biggar (Fla. 1937)
Kent v. Knowles (Fla. 1931)
Smith v. Stillman (Fla. 1940)
Ocala Manufacturing Ice & Packing Co. v. Preskitt (Fla. 1939)
Dade County v. South Dade Farms, Inc. (Fla. 1938)
The Century Tr. Co. v. the Allison Realty Co. (Fla. 1932)
Bowery v. Babbit (Fla. 1930)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The controlling1 litigated question in this ease was whether or not the mortgage held by the appellant was prior in dignity to the mortgage sought to be foreclosed by Sengstak. The determination of this question depended upon the consideration of testimony taken before a special master and reported to the court. This Court has repeatedly held that,

“While the findings and conclusions of a chancellor, where the testimony is not taken before him but before an examiner or master and the chancellor is not afforded the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses, are not entitled to the same weight as the verdict of a jury and are not so conclusive, yet even in that case they should not be disturbed by an appellate court, unless they are clearly shown to be erroneous. Mock v. Thomson, 58 Fla. 477, 50 So. 673; Lucas v. Wade, 43 Fla. 419, 31 So. 231.”

See Gollnick et ux. v. Barker, opinion filed November 7th, 1927, reported in 114 Sou., page 527.

There were assignments of error bringing many other questions to the attention of this Court, but a careful consideration of the record discloses no reversible error.

*608 The decree of the chancellor should be affirmed and it is so ordered.'

Affirmed.

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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.