G. B. KNOWLES, EXECUTOR OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF MARY ELLA BOYETTE, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
S. DAVIS BOYLSTON, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment against an executor because the trial court improperly allowed testimony from a party regarding transactions with the now-deceased testatrix, violating the dead man's statute. The Court held that such testimony is inadmissible unless it falls within narrow statutory exceptions.
A party interested in the event of a suit may not testify to transactions or communications with a deceased person under section 2705 R.G.S., except as provided in narrow statutory exceptions relating to supplementary oaths and books of account. Conclusory testimony that the decedent was indebted cannot overcome this statutory prohibition when the witness has not testified to the underlying facts showing how the obligation was created.
“Transactions and communications embrace every variety of affairs which can form the subject of negotiation, interviews or actions between two persons, and include every method by which one person can derive impressions or information from the conduct, condition or language of another”
Establishes the broad scope of what constitutes prohibited 'transactions and communications' under the dead man's statute
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceS. Davis Boylston sued G. B. Knowles, executor of Mary Ella Boyette's estate, on three common counts based on an alleged obligation owed by the deceas…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Common Counts cases and more on FLexlaw
This was. a suit by defendant in error against the plaintiff in error in his representative capacity wherein the declaration was in three common counts based upon an alleged obligation originating in the lifetime of Mary Ella Boyette, the deceased testatrix, from her to the plaintiff. During the progress of the trial the plaintiff was allowed over the objection of the defendant to testify concerning a transaction between himself and the decedent in violation of the provisions of section 2705 R. G. S., 4372. C. G. L. This section was section 1095 Revised Statutes. Construing that section this Court in the case of Chappin et al. vs. Mitchell, 44 Fla. 225, 32 Sou. 875, said:
“Transactions and communications embrace every variety of affairs which can form the subject of negotiation, interviews or actions between two persons, and include every method by which one person can derive impressions or information from the conduct, condition or language of another; and in a case where such trans-actions or comprunieations were had between a party to a suit, or one interested in the event thereof, and a party dead, lunatic or insane at the time they are offered in evidence, they can not be testified to by such party to> the suit or by any one interested in the event thereof, under the proviso to section 1095, Revised Statutes, except as to matters properly a part of the suppletoryoath in connection with books of account offered in evidence under the provisions of section 1120, Revised Statutes. ’ ’
It also appears from the record that the same witness was allowed to testify as to conclusions of law in that he was allowed to testify over the objection of the defendant, that the decedent was indebted to him, the plaintiff, in a stated amount. The witness did not testify to the facts showing how the alleged obligation was created and show*22ingi its existence because of the inhibition of section 2705 R. G. S., 4372 C. G. L. This inhibition could not be overcome by testimony which was merely the conclusion of the witness that the decedent was indebted to him.
For the reasons stated the judgment should be reversed and it is so ordered.
Reversed.
Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
Whitfield, P.J., and Tebrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Embrey v. S. GAS & Elec. Corp., 63 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1953)…on, interviews, or actions between two persons, and include every method by which one person can derive impressions or information from the conduct, condition, or language of another”. See also Holliday v. McKinne, 22 Fla. 153; Knowles v. Boylston, 103 Fla. 20, 137 So. 6. We see no need for'a further elaboration of the question, other than to voicé agreement with the views expressed by the highest court of Indiana in a case involving a similar statute: “The enactment in question is a salutary one, but i…
-
Stigletts v. McDonald, 135 Fla. 385 (Fla. 1938)…by the donor during her lifetime but, in my opinion, that evidence could not be considered because the donee was not a competent witness in this case under the provisions of Section 2505 R. G. S., 4372 C. G. L. See Knowles v. Boylston, 103 Fla. 20, 137 Sou. 6; Monroe v. Carroll, 80 Fla. 206, 86 Sou. 193; Holmes v. Kilgore, 89 Fla. 194, 103 Sou. 825; Madison v. 95 Fla. 321, 116 Sou. 31. It, therefore, follows that although the evidence is abun [*398] dantly sufficient to establish the fact that it was th…
-
Habig v. Bastian, 117 Fla. 864 (Fla. 1935)…ast above cited definitely uphold the letter of the statute. See also Johnston v. Thomas, 93 Fla. 67, 111 South. Rep. 541; Madison v. Robinson, 85 Fla. 321, 116 South. Rep. 31; LeBlanc v. Yawn, 99 Fla. 328, 126 South. Rep. 789; Knowles v. Boyleston, 103 Fla. 20, 137 South. Rep. 6; Catlett v. Chestnut, 107 Fla. 498, 146 South. Rep. 241. The question presented here involves' the law relating to the subject of the admissability of former testimony, by which term is meant evidence already given by oral testim…
Authorities Cited
- Chapin v. Mitchell, 44 Fla. 225 (Fla. 1902)