CLARENCE W. BROWN, JESSIE WASHINGTON AND C. S. WASHINGTON, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
ANDREW HARRIS, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a chancellor's decree that granted Andrew J. Harris a power to sell the Florida real estate in fee simple under his wife's will. The court held that the will's language giving the husband use of property "during his life" with remainder to others created only a life estate, not a power of absolute disposition.
The will created a life estate in the husband, not a power of absolute disposition. The language "to be used as he sees fit during his life, at his decease all that remains to be left to" others does not by implication confer a power to convey fee simple title to the real estate.
“In the construction of a will, the intention of a testator, as therein expressed, shall prevail over all other considerations, if consistent with the principles of law.”
Establishes the fundamental rule that testator's intent governs will interpretation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMary E. Harris's will devised property in Massachusetts and Florida to her husband Andrew J. Harris "to be used as he sees fit during his life, at his…
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 Fee Simple Title cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, P. J.
The will of Mary E. Harris contains the following: “I bequeath and devise * * * to my husband, Andrew J. Harris, all my property in Millbury and Florida, to be used as he sees fit during his life, at his decease all that remains to be left to Clarence W. Brown and Jessie Washington, of Safety Harbor, Florida, in equal shares.” It appears that Millbury is in the State of Massachusetts and that the property of the testator consists of real estate and some personal property in Massachusetts and 80 acres of land in Florida, two acres of which latter is enclosed and set with orange trees. Clarence W. Brown and Jessie Washington are the nephew and niece of the testatrix.
The chancellor decreed “that the will of Mary E. Harris gives to Andrew J. Harris a life estate, with power of disposal, in all property belonging to the said Mary E. Harris at the time of her decease; that the rights of the defendants Clarence W. Brown and Jessie Washington are depended upon the failure of the said Andrew J. Harris to exercise his right and power of disposal, and such right of the defendants shall attach only to the property not disposed of by the complainant during his life; and that Andrew J. Harris shall have the power and authority, if he sees fit to exercise it, to encumber, sell, convey and dispose of in fee simple the 80 acres of land described in the bill of complaint, * * * less the ten (10) acres heretofore conveyed to Clarence‘W. Brown, * * * and the title of the said Andrew J. Harris in and to the said lands is quieted against the claims of the defendants to the extent of the right granted him hereby to encumber, sell, convey and dispose of said property, and the defendants, and each of them, is forever enjoined and restrained from molesting or interfering with the complainant, Andrew J. Harris, in the exercise of the right hereby granted him. ’1
An appeal was taken.
In the construction of a will, the intention of a testator, as therein expressed, shall prevail over all other considerations, if consistent" with the principles of law. To this great rule in the exposition of wills, all others must bend. Rewis v. Rewis, 79 Fla. 126, 84 South. Rep. 93; Cole v. Cole, 88 Fla. 347, — South. Rep. —; Dean v. Crews, 77 Fla. 319, 81 South. Rep. 479. The will gave the husband a life, estate and not a fee in the real estate in Florida. Haviland v. Haviland, 130 Iowa. 611, 105 N. W. Rep. 354, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 281; Burham. v. Turkle, — Iowa —, 153 N. W. Rep. 1017.
The provisions “to be used as he sees fit during his life, at his decease all that remains to be left to” others, do not by implication confer upon Andrew J. Harris a power to convey the fee simple title to the real estate in Florida. See Brant v. Virginia Coal & Iron Co., 93 U. S. 326; 83 N. E. Rep. 1077.
Reversed.
Strum and Brown, J. J., conucr. West, C. J., and Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arnold v. Wells, 100 Fla. 1470 (Fla. 1930)…the construction of a will, the intention of the testator as therein expressed shall prevail over all other considerations if consistent with the principles of law. To this great rule in the exposition of wills all others must bend. Brown v. Harris, 90 Fla. 540, 106 So. R. 412; Cole v. Cole, 88 Fla. 347, 103 So. R. 78; Rewis v. Rewis, 79 Fla. 126, 84 So. R. 93; Dean v. Crews, 77 Fla. 319, 81 So. R. 479; Sorrels v. McNally, 89 Fla. 457, 105 So. R. 106. Looking at the will as a whole it appears to have been…
-
Richards v. West, 110 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)…ent with the views expressed herein. WIGGINTON, Acting Chief Judge, and PEARSON, TILLMAN, Associate Judge, concur. . See Marshall v. Hewett, 1945, 156 Fla. 645, 24 So. 2d 1; Mosgrove v. Mach, 1938, 133 Fla. 459, 182 So. 786; Brown v. Harris, 1925, 90 Fla. 540, 106 So. 412. . 2 A.L.R. 1243, 27 A.L.R. 1381, 69 A.L.R. 825, 114 A.L.R. 946. . Though not directly in point, Roberts v. Mosely, 1930, 100 Fla. 267, 129 So. 835, contains a passing reference to the “good faith” rule. See also Redfearn, Wills and A…
-
Mosgrove v. Mach, 133 Fla. 459 (Fla. 1938)…. Rep. 133, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 651, 21 Ann. Cas. 318; Dean v. Crews, 77 Fla. 319, 81 So. 479; Perkins v. O’Donald, 77 Fla. 710, 82 So. 401; Rewis v. Rewis, 79 Fla. 126, 84 So. 93; Cole v. Cole, 88 Fla. 347, 103 So. 78; Brown v. Harris, 90 Fla. 540, 106 So. 412; Arnold v. Wells, 100 Fla. 1470, 131 So. 400; First Trust, etc., Bank v. Henderson, 101 Fla. 1437, 136 So. 370, 378; Blocker v. Blocker, 103 Fla. 285, 137 So. 249; Byers v. Beddow, 106 Fla. 166, 142 So. 894, 896. “The intention of the testator is t…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brant v. Coal, 93 U.S. 326 (U.S. 1876)
- Dean v. Crews, 77 Fla. 319 (Fla. 1919)
- Vida Blanche Cole v. Cole, 88 Fla. 347 (Fla. 1924)
- Rewis v. Rewis, 79 Fla. 126 (Fla. 1920)