Case Name: BEVERLY BEACH PROPERTIES, Inc. et al. v. NELSON et al.
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1953-02-27
Citations: 68 So. 2d 604
Docket Number: 
Parties: BEVERLY BEACH PROPERTIES, Inc. et al. v. NELSON et al.
Judges: HOBSON, C. J., and TERRELL, THOMAS and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 68
Pages: 604–612

Head Matter:
BEVERLY BEACH PROPERTIES, Inc. et al. v. NELSON et al.
Supreme Court of Florida, Special Division A.
Feb. 27, 1953.
On Rehearing July 31, 1953.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 3, 1953.
Ward & Ward and Myers, Heiman & Kaplan, Miami, ‘ for appellants Beverly Beach- Properties, Inc., and Samuel Fried-land.
Hall, Hedrick & Dekle, Miami, for appellant Glynn O. Rasco.
Evans, Mershon, Sawyer, Johnston & Simmons and Herbert S. Sawyer, Miami, for appellant E. L. Lockhart.
Carl A. Hiaasen, McCune, Hiaasen & Kelley, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is the second time we have, been called on to consider this case. Nelson v. Beverly Beach Properties, Inc., Fla., 47 So. 2d 310, wherein it was found that we had rarely been confronted with a case that ran into such involved and tedious complexities. We were convinced that the rights of all the parties should be settled in the litigation and reversed for that purpose. The mandate went down, testimony was taken and' the chancellor entered a decree adjudicating the equities of the parties. We are now confronted with appeals and cross-appeals from the chancellor's decree.
Numerous' questions are urged for reversal. ' In his opinion the chancellor- found that on account of the lapse of time, complexities, and the cyoss-currents generated by the parties and their counsel in attempting to realize on their claims, the rem had become so involved that it would be impossible to place them all in status quo. We so indicated in the former opinion. The pleadings and the evidence on which.the chancellor's decree was predicated have been examined and we cannot say that error is clearly shown. We have searched diligently and are not advised in what respect the quality of justice could have been improved.
If another opinion would serve any useful purpose, we could do no better than to adopt the opinion and findings of the chancellor. They are detailed definite and specific. He knew the parties and the subject matter and was in much better position to pronounce justice than we are. The law of the case was ' pronounced in the former opinion and appears to have been followed scrupulously.
The judgment is accordingly affirmed.
Affirmed.
HOBSON, C. J., and TERRELL, THOMAS and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.