LENORA T. PHILLIPS, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIE HOWELL, APPELLEE
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.
Lenora T. Phillips sought to remove a cloud on her title to Florida land by challenging a will executed by George Phillips in favor of Rena Howell. The court affirmed the lower court's finding that Phillips failed to prove a valid marriage to George Phillips, leaving Rena Howell's claim paramount.
The court affirmed the chancellor's finding that Lenora T. Phillips failed to prove a valid legal marriage to George Phillips. The testimony regarding the alleged marriage between Phillips and George Phillips was found to be entirely contradictory and out of harmony.
“the testimony affecting a legal marriage between the said George Phillips and Lenora T. Phillips has been examined carefully and found to be entirely contradictory and out of harmony, and it is on this testimony that the case turns”
Establishes that the central issue was the validity of the marriage and that the evidence was conflicting and contradictory
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeorge Phillips, a colored man of considerable means, died on October 12, 1916. He had executed a will on May 7, 1908, in favor of Rena Howell, which …
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 Law Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
Terrell, J.
Lenora T. Phillips brought suit in chancery to remove a cloud from the title to certain lands claimed by her in Duval County, Florida. The cloud in question was a will made by one George Phillips, May 7, 1908, in favor of one Rena Howell, said will having been probated in Duval County,- February 17, 1917.
The bill alleges that Lenora T. Phillips, the appellant, was lawfully married to the said George Phillips September 25,1912; that one child was the result of said marriage, and that at the time of the death of the said George Phillips on October 12, 1916, she was his lawful wife. The answer challenges all allegations in support of said marriage, and alleges that Rena Howell was the lawful wife of George Phillips, and that Willie Howell, the appellee here, is her son and lawful heir to the lands in question.
The record discloses that George Phillips was a thrifty colored man who accumulated considerable property in Florida and Georgia; that he at different times lived and cohabited with both Rena Howell and Lenora T. Phillips and other colored women, any one of whom might have been termed his common law wife; but the testimony affecting a legal marriage between the said George Phillips and Lenora T. Phillips has been examined carefully and found to be entirely contradictory and out of harmony, and it is on this testimony that the case turns.
The master who took the testimony found against the appellant. This finding was approved by the chancellor, and it does not clearly appear that he erred in his conclusions. Whidden V. Rogers, 78 Fla. 93, 82 South. Rep. 611, Boyd v. Gosser, 78 Fla. 64, text 70, 82 South. Rep. 758; Bandlin v. Hunter Co. 70 Fla. 514, 70 South. Rep. 553; Waterman v. Higgins, 28 Fla. 660, 10 South. Rep. 97.
The decree of the chancellor is therefore affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and West, J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Ellis and Browne, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City of Venice v. State, 96 Fla. 527 (Fla. 1928)…dson, 74 Fla. 485, 77 So. R. 266; Simpson v. First National Bank, 74 Fla. 539, 77 So. R. 204; Whidden v. Rogers, 78 Fla 93, 82 So. R. 611; Kreher v. Morley, 84 Fla. 121, 92 So. R. 686; Kirkland v. Hutto, 85 Fla. 82, 95 So. R. 429 Phillips v. Howell, 88 Fla. 280, 102 So. R. 157. The decree should be affirmed.…
-
Galloway v. Tompkins, 119 Fla. 689 (Fla. 1935)…observed by this Court in very many cases, some of which are: Fulton v. Clewiston Limited, 100 Fla. 257, 129 South. Rep. 773; Hogeboom v. Anderson, 70 Fla. 393, 70 Sou. Rep. 312; Hill v. Beacham, 79 Fla. 430, 85 South. Rep. 147; Phillips v. Howell, 88 Fla. 280, 102 South. Rep. 157; Farrell v. Forest Inv. Co., 73 Fla. 191, 74 South. Rep. 216, 1 A. L. R. 25; Turnipseed v. Brown, 102 Fla. 542, 136 South. Rep. 343; Lewter v. Price, 25 Fla. 574, 6 South. Rep. 439; D’Esterre v. Trust Co. of Georgia, 103 Fla. 10…
Authorities Cited
- Giles v. Garland, 70 Fla. 514 (Fla. 1915)
- Aden E. Waterman v. Reola A. Higgins, 28 Fla. 660 (Fla. 1891)
- Whidden v. Rogers, 78 Fla. 93 (Fla. 1919)
- Administratrix v. Gosser, 78 Fla. 70 (Fla. 1919)
- Administratrix v. Gosser, 78 Fla. 64 (Fla. 1918)