opportunity of seeing hearing in Florida

1928Mock 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.

1927Mock v. Thompson, 58 Fla. 477 , 50 Sou. 673 ; Lucas v. Wade, 43 Fla. 419 , 31 Sou. 231 .

1965The prevailing principles of law are set forth in Ames v. Ames, Fla.App. 1963, 153 So.2d 737 , as follows: * * * * * * "In Thompson v. Field, Fla. 1951, 54 So.2d 520 , it was said: "`We are unalterably committed to the rule that we will not reverse a Final Decree entered by a Chancellor *363 which is predicated upon conflicting evidence if the record contains competent, substantial testimony to sustain such Final Decree, or, stated in another way, unless the Chancellor's findings were clearly erroneous.' (Emphasis supplied) "In Cowen v. Cowen, Fla. 1957, 95 So.2d 584 , this statement is made:

1963In Thompson v. Field, Fla. 1951, 54 So.2d 520 , it was said: "We are unalterably committed to the rule that we will not reverse a Final Decree entered by a Chancellor which is predicated upon conflicting evidence if the record contains competent, substantial testimony to sustain such Final Decree, or, stated in another way, unless the Chancellor's findings were clearly erroneous." In Cowen v. Cowen, Fla. 1957, 95 So.2d 584 , this statement is made: "This case was heard before the trial Judge who had the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses and the rule is too well established to req

1965The prevailing principles of law are set forth in Ames v. Ames, Fla.App. 1963, 153 So.2d 737 , as follows: * * * * * * "In Thompson v. Field, Fla. 1951, 54 So.2d 520 , it was said: "`We are unalterably committed to the rule that we will not reverse a Final Decree entered by a Chancellor *363 which is predicated upon conflicting evidence if the record contains competent, substantial testimony to sustain such Final Decree, or, stated in another way, unless the Chancellor's findings were clearly erroneous.' (Emphasis supplied) "In Cowen v. Cowen, Fla. 1957, 95 So.2d 584 , this statement is made:

1963In Thompson v. Field, Fla. 1951, 54 So.2d 520 , it was said: "We are unalterably committed to the rule that we will not reverse a Final Decree entered by a Chancellor which is predicated upon conflicting evidence if the record contains competent, substantial testimony to sustain such Final Decree, or, stated in another way, unless the Chancellor's findings were clearly erroneous." In Cowen v. Cowen, Fla. 1957, 95 So.2d 584 , this statement is made: "This case was heard before the trial Judge who had the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses and the rule is too well established to req

1965The prevailing principles of law are set forth in Ames v. Ames, Fla.App. 1963, 153 So.2d 737 , as follows: * * * * * * "In Thompson v. Field, Fla. 1951, 54 So.2d 520 , it was said: "`We are unalterably committed to the rule that we will not reverse a Final Decree entered by a Chancellor *363 which is predicated upon conflicting evidence if the record contains competent, substantial testimony to sustain such Final Decree, or, stated in another way, unless the Chancellor's findings were clearly erroneous.' (Emphasis supplied) "In Cowen v. Cowen, Fla. 1957, 95 So.2d 584 , this statement is made:

1963In Thompson v. Field, Fla. 1951, 54 So.2d 520 , it was said: "We are unalterably committed to the rule that we will not reverse a Final Decree entered by a Chancellor which is predicated upon conflicting evidence if the record contains competent, substantial testimony to sustain such Final Decree, or, stated in another way, unless the Chancellor's findings were clearly erroneous." In Cowen v. Cowen, Fla. 1957, 95 So.2d 584 , this statement is made: "This case was heard before the trial Judge who had the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses and the rule is too well established to req

1965The prevailing principles of law are set forth in Ames v. Ames, Fla.App. 1963, 153 So.2d 737 , as follows: * * * * * * "In Thompson v. Field, Fla. 1951, 54 So.2d 520 , it was said: "`We are unalterably committed to the rule that we will not reverse a Final Decree entered by a Chancellor *363 which is predicated upon conflicting evidence if the record contains competent, substantial testimony to sustain such Final Decree, or, stated in another way, unless the Chancellor's findings were clearly erroneous.' (Emphasis supplied) "In Cowen v. Cowen, Fla. 1957, 95 So.2d 584 , this statement is made:

1927Co., 73 Fla. 130 , 74 South.

1927Co., 73 Fla. 130 , 74 South.

1918Johns v. Bowden, 72 Fla. 530 , 73 South.

1918Johns v. Bowden, 72 Fla. 530 , 73 South.

1916“In equity, as well as at law, every presumption is in favor of the correctness of the rulings of the trial judge, and a final decree rendered by him, based largely or solely upon questions of fact, will not be reversed, unless the evidence clearly shows that it was erroneous.” Bank of Jasper v. Tuten, 62 Fla. 423 , 57 South.

1914As we have repeatedly ruled, “While the findings and conclusions of a chancellor, where the testimony is not taken before him, but before a master or examiner, by reason whereof he is not afforded an opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses, are not entitled to the same weight as the verdict of a jury, yet even in that case they should not be disturbed by an appellate court, unless they are clearly shown to be erroneous.” See Barnes & Jessup Co. v. Williams, supra, and Baxter v. Liddon, 62 Fla. 428 , 56 South.