Case Name: INDEPENDENT TAXI OWNERS ASSOCIATION OF FORT LAUDERDALE, INC., a non-profit corporation of Florida, Cleo Wells, Milton Kurz and Joseph A. Fitzsimmons, individually, jointly and severally, Appellants, v. Sylvester C. BOND, Sr., Individually, Mary Bond, Claire H. Stoner, Welcome H. Nye, and Yellow Cab Associates, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1964-10-02
Citations: 168 So. 2d 327
Docket Number: No. 3864
Parties: INDEPENDENT TAXI OWNERS ASSOCIATION OF FORT LAUDERDALE, INC., a non-profit corporation of Florida, Cleo Wells, Milton Kurz and Joseph A. Fitzsimmons, individually, jointly and severally, Appellants, v. Sylvester C. BOND, Sr., Individually, Mary Bond, Claire H. Stoner, Welcome H. Nye, and Yellow Cab Associates, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.
Judges: SHANNON, Acting C. J., and WEHLE, VICTOR O., Associate Judge, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 168
Pages: 327–328

Head Matter:
INDEPENDENT TAXI OWNERS ASSOCIATION OF FORT LAUDERDALE, INC., a non-profit corporation of Florida, Cleo Wells, Milton Kurz and Joseph A. Fitzsimmons, individually, jointly and severally, Appellants, v. Sylvester C. BOND, Sr., Individually, Mary Bond, Claire H. Stoner, Welcome H. Nye, and Yellow Cab Associates, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.
No. 3864.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.
Oct. 2, 1964.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 13, 1964.
Joseph A. Fitzsimmons, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellants.
Stephen R. Booher, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellees.

Opinion:
ANDREWS, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final decree in a very complicated case involving the Independent Taxi Owners Association of Fort Lauderdale, Inc., a non-profit Florida corporation, and certain members of said Association, and certain other operators of taxis in Fort Lauderdale.
Numerous hearings were held on the pleadings, and a voluminous record developed as a result of three days trial before the Chancellor.
A careful examination of the record and of the briefs does not disclose reversible error. The evidence was conflicting and it was the duty of the Chancellor to determine the credibility of the witnesses, the probative value of tlie evidence, and to interpret the legal effect of the evidence in accordance with the law. This the Chancellor did after extensive study of the record.
In such cases the appellate court should not disturb a decree entered under such circumstances unless the appellant calls the court's attention to substantial error by the Chancellor in reaching his conclusions. Peterson v. Hancock, 1941, 146 Fla. 410, 1 So.2d 255. The appellant in this cause has not pointed out to this court, nor does the record reveal errors sufficient to cause this court to overrule the Chancellor. Wilson v. Rooney, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 892.
Affirmed.
SHANNON, Acting C. J., and WEHLE, VICTOR O., Associate Judge, concur.