Supreme Court of Florida, 1934

Cobb v. McCall

Supreme Court of Florida · Decided June 12, 1934 · Pfr, Davis, Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown, Buford

156 So. 705; 116 Fla. 308 (Southern Reporter)

Cases that cite this one

58 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Laisne v. California State Board of Optometry (Cal. 1942)
Hadley v. Department of Administration (Fla. 1982)
Shands Jacksonville Medical Center, Inc., and University of Florida Board of Trustees (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024)
Libby Investigations v. Department of State, Division of Licensing (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
Harold C. Ostrosky v. State of Alaska Roger v. Endell, Commissioner of Corrections (9th Cir. 1990)
Norwood-Norland Homeowners Ass'n v. Dade County (Florida Circuit Courts 1986)
Zabel v. Pinellas County Water & Nav. Con. Auth. (Fla. 1965)
Welsh, Governor v. Sells (Ind. 1963)
Becker v. Merrell (Fla. 1944)
Nelson v. Lindsey (Fla. 1942)
Roberson v. Bondurant (N.M. 1937)
West Flagler Amusement Co. v. State Racing Commission (Fla. 1935)
Progressive Select Insurance Company v. Leslie Bunsee (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024)
Phillips v. Department of Business & Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
Smith v. DHRS (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
Jacker v. School Board of Dade County (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)
Engel v. Rigot (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)
City of Opa-Locka v. Owens (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)
Bach v. Florida State Bd. of Dentistry (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)
State v. Black (Ind. Ct. App. 1978)
State ex rel. Greenberg v. Florida State Board of Dentistry (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)
State Ex Rel. Vining v. FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COM'N (Fla. 1973)
Dade County v. McIntosh (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)
State v. Knox (Iowa 1971)
Board of Public Instruction v. State Ex Rel. Allen (Fla. 1969)

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

Pfr Curiam.

The decision of this case turns upon the evidence. As we are not able to find that the Chancellor was clearly in error in his conclusions from the evidence, the decree appealed from must be and is hereby

Affirmed.

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

Addendum

On Rehearing Granted.

Per Curiam.

This was a mortgage foreclosure. Complainant prevailed in the court below. Final decree originally entered allowed- complainant a recovery of $10004)0 principal and $729.99 interest thereon, together with a solicitor’s fee of $172.00. On rehearing granted after affirmance of the original decree on June 12, 1934, we have become convinced after a reargument of the cause, that recovery should have been'limited in final decree to not exceeding $501.93 principal with interest on same -at the rate of ten per cent, until July 3, 1932, the date of final decree. *309 The solicitor’s fee should be reduced in proportion to such reasonable sum as the Chancellor shall hereafter fix in an amended final decree, after notice and hearing, or by consent of the parties after remand. The costs- of this appeal should be imposed on the appellant and appellee in equal-shares. We have arrived at these figures by treating the note for $1515.00 given August 12, 1927, as being intended between the parties to represent all the debt that was due on any account as of the date it was given.

It is therefore considered, ordered and -adjudged on rehearing that the decree appealed from be reversed with directions' to have further proceedings and enter an amended final decree to conform to this opinion the costs of this appeal to be taxed one-half against appellant and one-half against appellee herein.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.

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