RICHARD L. NELSON, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM P. HAISLEY AS EXECUTOR OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF ANNIE M. B. PRENTISS, DECEASED, E. W. AGNEW AS TRUSTEE FOR ANNIE M. B. PRENTISS, JULIA S. HAISLEY AND WILLIAM P. HAISLEY, HER HUSBAND, APPELLEES
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 partition decree, holding that necessary parties, such as heirs or devisees of a deceased co-tenant, must be properly before the court before adjudication. The court emphasized that an executor is not a proper party to represent title unless specifically authorized by the will.
The court held that the heirs or devisees of the deceased co-tenant were necessary parties and should have been joined in the partition suit. The executor was not a proper party to represent the title unless the will specifically authorized them to do so.
“the rights and interests of necessary and indispensable parties can not be adjudicated when they aró not properly before the court”
Establishes the principle that parties essential to the adjudication must be present.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involves a partition suit where a co-tenant defendant died during the proceedings. The appeal concerns whether the executor of the deceased …
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 Trust Termination cases and more on FLexlaw
Carter, J.:
We held in Lyon and Hendricks’ Executors vs. Register, 36 Fla. 273, 18 South. Rep. 689, that the rights and interests of necessary and indispensable parties can not be adjudicated when they aró not properly before the court, and that where a co-tenant defendant dies pending a suit for partition it is necessary that the heir or devisee of such co-tenant be made a party defendant before proceeding with the partition, and that the executor of such deceased co-tenant is not a proper party to represent the heir or devisee where it is not shown by the will that such executor is invested with and authorized to represent the title. These principles are decisive of this appeal. If, upon the death of Mrs. Prentiss, the trust upon which Mr. Agnew held the estate terminated, and the title to the property devolved upon the legatees under Mrs. Prentiss’ will, they should have been made party defen d-ant, or there should have been a proper showing that the executor was by the will invested with and authorized to represent the title. If the trust continued after the death of Mrs. Prentiss there should have been a proper showing of this fact, with allegations of title and powers in the trustee sufficient to authorize him to represent the property sought to be partitioned, without the presence of his new ceshoi que trust as a party defendant. Rivas vs. Summers, 33 Fla. 539, 15 South. Rep. 319.
The decree appealed from is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this-opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lovett v. Lovett, 112 So. 768 (Fla. 1927)…uires all of such co-tenants or coparceners to be made parties to the suit if known. In such suits the rights and interests of necessary and indispensable parties can not be adjudicated when they are not properly before the Court. Nelson v. Haisley, 39 Fla. 145, 22 So. 265. It was error, therefore, for the Court to decree •partition, or to determine that the defendant was the equitable owner of the interest to which W. N. Camp held the legal title, as W. N. Camp was not a party to the suit, and could not b…1 / 2
-
Camp Phosphate Co. v. Anderson, 48 Fla. 226 (Fla. 1904)…quires all of such cotenants or coparceners to be made parties to the suit if known. In such suits the rights and interests of necessary and indispensable parties can not be adjudicated when they are not properly before the court. Nelson v. Haisley, 39 Fla. 145, 22 South. Rep. 265. It was error, therefore, for the court to decree partition, or to determine that the defendant was the equitable owner of the interest to which W. N. Camp held the legal title, as W. N. Camp was not a party to the suit, and coul…
-
Rawls v. Tallahassee Hotel Co., 43 Fla. 288 (Fla. 1901)…oyment of her property, although she was not a party to the suit. For the reason that Mrs. Mary M. Rawls was a [*297] necessary indispensable party the decree should be reversed. Craver v. Spencer, 40 Fla. 135, 23 South. Rep. 880; Nelson v. Haisley, 39 Fla. 145, 22 South. Rep. 265; Lyon v. Register, 36 Fla. 273, 18 South. Rep. 589; Greeley v. Hendricks, 23 Fla. 366, 2 South. Rep. 620; Wykes v. Ringleberg, 49 Mich. 567, 14 N. W. Rep. 498; Beasley v. Shively, 20 Oregon, 508, 26 Pac. Rep. 846. This defect as…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rivas v. Summers, 33 Fla. 539 (Fla. 1894)
- Lyon v. Register, 36 Fla. 273 (Fla. 1895)