J. R. SAPP AND L. M. SAPP, APPELLANTS,
v.
ARMSTRONG PROPERTIES, INC., A CORPORATION, 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 affirmed a lower court's decision that a widow received a fee simple title to her deceased husband's property, excluding the homestead, based on the interpretation of his will.
Yes, the court held that the widow received a fee simple estate in the property, consistent with the lower court's ruling.
“The law is that the intention of the testator as therein expressed, shall prevail over all other considerations, if consistent with the principles of law.”
Establishes the guiding principle for interpreting the will.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe complainant, Armstrong Properties, Inc., filed a suit in equity to foreclose a contract for the sale of lands against the defendants, J. R. Sapp a…
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 Testamentary Intent cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a case in which the defendants' below have appealed from a final decree in favor of the complainant, in a suit in equity which the complainant brought against the defendants below, for the foreclosure of a contract for the sale of lands.
The sole question raised by the pleadings was whether or not under provisions of the las't will and testament of D. R. Armstrong, deceased, his widow received a fee simple title to all of her husband’s property here involved, except his homestead with which the parties to this appeal are not concerned. The Chancellor held that a fee simple estate was crated in the wife and we find no error in that ruling.
The law is that the intention of the testator as therein expressed, shall prevail over all other considerations, if consistent with the principles of law. Dean v. Crews, 77 *346Fla. 319, 81 Sou. Rep. 479. The will involved in this case contained a provision reading as follows: “I leave all my property, persbnal and otherwise to my wife,” which language, taken in connection with the context, is to be construed as an absolute devise of all property to the wife, except the homestead, which latter consisting of a house and three lots, the testator expressly directed to “be set apart as home for wife for her life.”
The decree appealed from is’ affirmed.
Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Melton v. State, 159 Fla. 106 (Fla. 1947)…rily or capriciously.” (Emphasis supplied.) See Hinson v. State, 62 Fla. 63, 56 So. 674; Bryant v. State, 89 Fla. 26, 103 So. 170; Driggers v. State, 90 Fla. 324, 105 So. 841; Thomas v. State, 96 Fla. 243, 118 So. 22; Rogers v. State, 108 Fla. 373, 146 So. 561; Goddard v. State, 143 Fla. 28, 196 So. 596; Dougherty v. State, 154 Fla. 308, 17 So. (2nd) 290. Moreover, counsel for appellant did not object to the introduction of the evidence relating to his admissions, although he had full opportunity to do s…
Authorities Cited
- Dean v. Crews, 77 Fla. 319 (Fla. 1919)