Baxter v. LiddonBaxter v. Liddon
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Shackleford
— Thе appellee filed his • bill in chancery against the appellants in which he sought to enjoin the prosecution of an аction of ejectment which had been instituted against him by the appellants, also a decree to the effect that the appellee had an equitable title to the land in dispute, that the appellants be required to convey the same to him by good and sufficient deeds, and that he might have general relief. The appellants filed an answer to the bill, in which they denied practically all the equi ties of the bill, a replication was filed thereto and the cause referred to a special master or examiner to take and report the testimony of the witnesses produced by the respective parties litigant. A restraining order or *430temporary injunction Lad previously been granted by the chancellor*, in which it was recited that all parties had notice of the time and place of hеaring the application for the same. The cause came on for a final hearing upon the pleadings and upon the testimony so taken and reported by the special mаster, and a final decree was rendered in favor of the appellee, in accordance with the prayers of his bill. From this decree the appellants have entered thеir appeal and have assigned as errors the granting of the temporary injunction, the denial of the motion of the defеndants for a dissolution of the same and the rendering of the final ‘decree.
The pleadings are in rather a confused statе, but none of them seem to have been attacked or called in question. Evidently the special master was not empоwered to pass upon objections to proffered testimony and much irrelevant and extraneous matter was- introducеd, but the record does not affirmatively show that any of the objections interposed to such testimony were presented to and ruled upon by the chancellor, either at or beforе the final hearing of the cause. This being true, we cannot pаss upon any of -such objections, but must presume that all the mattеr copied by the clerk into the record purporting to be evidence was used as evidence in the court below. Lovett v. Armstrong, 61 Fla. 681, 54 South. Rep. 381.
No useful purpose could be subserved by setting forth either the pleadings or the evidence. As we have already sаid, the record is confused. There is also more or less cоnflict in the testimony upon some of the material points, but the chancellor found that the equities were with the complainant and rendered a decree in his favor. We are of the оpinion that the evidence supports the decree and that substantial justice has been meted out to the respeсtive parties. See Sarasota Ice, Fish & Power Co. v. Lyle, *43158 Fla. 517, 50 South. Rep. 993; Viser v. Willard, 60 Fla. 395, 53 South. Rep. 501; Lovett v. Armstrong, 61 Fla. 681, 54 South. Rep. 381; Brannon v. Blume, 61 Fla. 505, 55 South. Rep. 549. A more extended discussion does not seem called for or advisable. No rеversable error having been made to appear, thе decree must be affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Cockrell, J., concur; Taylor, Hocker and Parki-iill, J. J., concur in the opinion.