JESSIE BUTTS, ALSO KNOWN AS MRS. CALVIN BUTTS, FOR THE USE OF C. D. STARBUCK, SUCCESSOR IN TITLE TO L. G. STARBUCK, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
LOUIS JAMMES, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

Fla. | 1914-11-09
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.
68 Fla. 231 Florida Supreme Court (1914) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

This case involves a dispute over the ownership of a piece of land. The court affirmed a directed verdict for the defendant, holding that the life tenant, who was also the executor, had the authority under the will to sell the property, even if it was specifically devised to another party after the life estate.


Holding

Yes, the court held that the express power granted to the executor to sell any and all of the testator's estate, real and personal, included the specifically devised land. Therefore, the conveyance by the life tenant/executor to the defendant was valid.


Key Quotes

“I hereby fully authorize and empower my executors to sell, dispose of and convey any and all of my estate, real and personal, at public auction or at private sale, as they may deem proper...”

This quote establishes the broad power of sale granted to the executors in the testator's will.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The plaintiff claimed title to a "Lot 3, Tier 14, Gertrude Avenue" via a quit-claim deed from a potential devisee. The defendant claimed title through…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Whitfield, J.

Whitfield, J.

In an action of ejectment to recover “Lot 3, Tier 14, Gertrude Avenue,” also described as “Lot 4 Block Z,” at Sanford, Florida, tbe court refused to instruct for the plaintiff on the evidence and directed a verdict for the defendants. Tbe plaintiff took writ of error and contends here only that the conveyance of the land to the defendants was not authorized by the will under which it was made. The plaintiff’s quit-claim deed was executed by one claiming to be a devisee of the particular land, while the defendant’s deed was executed by the life tenant who was executor with express power to sell and convey. The will of James Albert Merritt, under which both-parties claim title, makes stated bequests, then provides: “To my mother Sarah A. Merritt, I give and bequeath the use, income, rent, issues and profits of all the residue of my estate both real and personal of which I may die seized 'or possessed to be used and enjoyed by her for and during the term of her natural life.” “After the death of my mother I give and bequeath the following-sums of money,” etc. “To Mrs. Calvin (Jessie) Butts * * I give, devise and bequeath * * * Lot 3, Tier 14 Gertrude Avenue,” in Sanford, Florida. Then follows a residuary devise to several designated persons. The will then states, “I hereby fully authorize and empower my executors to sell, dispose of and convey any and all of my estate, real and personal, at public auction or at private sale, as they may deem proper, and out of the moneys arising from such sale or sales of my said real and personal estates, to pay all my just debts, funeral charges and expense of settling my estate and the legacies herein bequeathed, and I fully authorize and empower my said executors to execute and deliver good and sufficient conveyance for any of my real estate which may be sold by him.” Sarah A. Merritt was the only executrix who qualified and acted and she “both as life tenant and as executor of the last will and testament of J. Albert Merritt” “by virtue of the power and authority to her given in and by the’said last will and testament” conveyed the land to Jammes in 1901. At the trial “it was admitted by the plaintiff that the defendant had been in possession since the date of said deed, viz.: October 5th, 1901, pretending to own it as his own; that said defendant has been claiming under said deed; that he had fenced the property ; that he had been in complete possession thereof and had complied with every requisite necessary to make a claim of adverse ownership if he were in a position so to do.” It does not appear when Mrs. Merritt, the life tenant and executor, died.

Even if Mrs. Butts, who gave L. G. Starbuck a quitclaim deed to the land, was a devisee in fee of the particular land, to take effect after the death of the life tenant, the express power given to the executor to sell and convey any and all of the testator’s estate real and personal, covered the land specifically devised as well as any other property of the testator, since there is apparent from the will no purpose that the land devised to Mrs. Butts should not be sold and conveyed by the executor; but the will is subject to the construction that the land or its value was to go to Mrs. Butts as may be deemed by the executors to be to the best interests of the estate. Under the circumstances of this case it cannot be said that the court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • In re Est. of Katherine Elizabeth Gamble, 183 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
    …the views expressed herein. RAWLS, Chief Judge, and CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concur. . § 733.22, F.S.A. . Standard Oil Company v. Mehrtens, 96 Fla. 455, 118 So. 216, 220. . 33 P.J.51 Executors and Administrators § 27G (1942). . Butts v. Jammes, 68 Fla. 231, 66 So. 1004. . Rank v. Sullivan (Fla.App.1961), 132 So. 2d 32.…
  • In re Est. of Robert C. Smith, 200 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
    …and residue of the estate to be theirs ‘absolutely and in fee simple’ indicates a testamentary intent that all real property not needed in administering the will should descend to the legatees in kind.” The Supreme Court, in Butts v. Jammes, 1914, 68 Fla. 231, 66 So. 1004, held in a similar situation that “an express power given an executor to sell” property in a testator’s estate “may authorize the sale by the executor of lands that are expressly devised”, but pointedly qualified such power by the follo…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw