RICHARD F. HOWE, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES DEERING, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
EDWARD W. LOWE, D. H. OSTEEN, THOMAS WILSON, PAUL RUFFO, S. L. PRIMUS AND MARY V. HARTLEY, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF FRED HARTLEY, DECEASED, 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 affirmed a lower court's decree due to an equal division among the justices, establishing a precedent for affirming decisions when the court is permanently and equally divided.
The court held that when the members of the Supreme Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion and there is no prospect of immediate change, the decree of the lower court should be affirmed.
“When the members of the Supreme Court are sitting six members in a body and after full consultation, it appears that the members of the court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to whether the decree should be affirmed or reversed, and there is no prospect of an immediate change in the personnel of the court, the decree should be affirmed”
This quote explains the rule applied when the court is equally divided.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved an appeal of a decree from the Circuit Court. The Florida Supreme Court, consisting of six justices, was equally divided in its opin…
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.
In this cause Mr. Chief Justice Buford, Mr. Justice Ellis and Mr. Justice Davis are of opinion that the decree of the Circuit Court should be affirmed while Mr. Justice Whitfield, Mr. Justice Terrell and Mr. *1197Justice Brown are of opinion that the decree should he reversed. When the members of the Supreme Court are sitting six members in a body and after full consultation, it appears that the members of the court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to whether the decree should be affirmed or reversed, arid there is no prospect of an immediate change in the personnel of the court, the decree should be affirmed; therefore it is considered, ordered and adjudged under the authority of State ex rel. Hampton vs. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 South. Rep. 51, that the decree of the Circuit Court in this cause be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
On Rehearing.
AMENDED ORDER OP APPIRMANCE.
In this cause Mr. Chief Justice Buford and Mr. Justice Ellis are of the opinion that the decree in this cause should be affirmed. Mr. Justice Davis is of the opinion that the decree should be affirmed as to all parties except Paul Ruffo, and that as to Paul Ruffo the decree should be reversed, while Mr. Justice Whitfield, Mr. Justice Terrell and M^. Justice Brown are of the opinion that the decree should be reversed. When the members of the Supreme Court, sitting six members in a body and after full consultation it appears that the members of the Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to whether the decree should be affirmed or reversed, and there is no prospect of an immediate change in the personnel of the Court, the decree should be affirmed; therefore it is considered, ordered and adjudged under the authority of State ex rel. Hampton vs. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 Sou. Rep. 51, that the decree of the Circuit Court in this cause be and the same is hereby affirmed as to all parties except Paul Ruffo, and that as to *1198Paul Ruffo the decree he reversed, a majority of the court concurring in such reversal as to the appellee, Paul Ruffo.
. Affirmed as to all except Paul Ruffo.
■Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
Per Curiam.
In this cause Mr. Chief Justice Buford and Mr. Justice Ellis are of the opinion that the decree in this cause should be affirmed. Mr. Justice Davis is of the opinion that the decree should be affirmed as to all parties except Paul Ruffo, and that as to Paul Ruffo the decree should be reversed, while Mr. Justice Whitfield, Mr. Justice Terrell and M^. Justice Brown are of the opinion that the decree should be reversed. When the members of the Supreme Court, sitting six members in a body and after full consultation it appears that the members of the Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to whether the decree should be affirmed or reversed, and there is no prospect of an immediate change in the personnel of the Court, the decree should be affirmed; therefore it is considered, ordered and adjudged under the authority of State ex rel. Hampton vs. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 Sou. Rep. 51, that the decree of the Circuit Court in this cause be and the same is hereby affirmed as to all parties except Paul Ruffo, and that as to Paul Ruffo the decree he reversed, a majority of the court concurring in such reversal as to the appellee, Paul Ruffo.
. Affirmed as to all except Paul Ruffo.
Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boyle v. Howe, 126 Fla. 662 (Fla. 1935)…On Rehearing Had March 18, 1936. Per Curiam. This is the third appearance here of cases involving the construction of the fifth paragraph of the will of James Deering, deceased. For former cases see Howe v. Lowe, 103 Fla. 1196, 137 So. 521; Howe v. Fry, 116 Fla. 528, 157 So. 331. William L. Boyle, Sarah Bethel by her husband and next friend, Clarence Bethel, and Eli Pelchat brought their bill of complaint against Richard F. Howe, as sole Executor of the estate of James D…
-
Howe v. Sands, 141 Fla. 813 (Fla. 1940)…pra. From this final decree an appeal has been perfected to this Court and the case is here for review. Paragraph Five of the Last Will and Testament of James Deering has been considered and construed by this Court in the cases, viz.: Howe v. Lowe, 103 Fla. 1196, 133 So. 549, 137 So. 521; Howe v. Fry, 116 Fla. 528, 157 So. 331; Boyle v. Howe, 126 Fla. 662, 171 So. 667. The members of this Court were equally divided in Howe v. Lowe v. Fry, supra. It is contended that there should be a re-examination of the l…
-
Howe v. Fry, 116 Fla. 528 (Fla. 1934)…he Justices of this Court were in sharp disagreement as to the construction of this provision of the will as to its application [*530] to particular individuals alleged to have been servants of Mr. Deering at the time of his death. See Howe v. Lowe, 103 Fla. 1196, 133 Sou. Rep. 549, 137 Sou. Rep. 521. The present appeal is from a final adjudication made by the court below ordering the payment of legacies to the following persons: (1) W. C. Fry, chief engineer and captain of boats; (2) Ralph Hutcheson, who…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Hiram J. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1904)