WILLIAM A. BURGESS, AS EXECUTOR AND MRS. R. I. DUNN, MRS. L. L. PIKE, MARY L. BURROWS, HELEN G. WILLIAMS, A. A. CRAIG AND WARREN W. SHAILER, AS RESIDUARY DEVISEES UNDER THE WILL OF LANDALE W. DUNCAN, DECEASED, APPELLANTS,
v.
ERLE L. WIRT, 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 chancellor's decree dismissing a bill seeking to void a deed of conveyance executed by Marie E. P. Griswold to Erle L. Wirt in 1912. The court found no error in the chancellor's findings that the appellants failed to establish a resulting trust in favor of the grantor and her mother.
The court affirmed the chancellor's decree dismissing the bill, finding that the appellants failed to establish that the parties intended to create a resulting trust in favor of the grantor and her mother at the time the deed was executed.
“The contention of the appellants that it was the purpose of the parties to the conveyance at the time the deed was executed to create a resulting trust in favor of the grantor, Mrs. Griswold, and her mother, Mrs. Ingersoll, upon the lands was not sustained.”
States the court's rejection of the primary legal theory advanced by the appellants.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarie E. P. Griswold, a free dealer, executed a deed conveying specific lots in Bartow to Erle L. Wirt on July 22, 1912. The suit was originally broug…
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.
Ellis, J.
— This is a suit to' declare void a deed of conveyance executed by Marie E. P. Griswold, a free dealer, to Erie L. Wirt on July 22, 1912, conveying Lot One (11 and the north half of Lot Four (4) in Block Thirteen (13) of the Summerlin School Lands Addition to the Town of Bartow. "Also a one-half undivided interest in and to beginning at the North East corner of Lot One (1) in Block Eight (8) of the Original Survey of the Town of Bartow, run thence West One hundred feet, thence South fifty feet, thence East One hundred feet and thence North fifty feet to point of beginning. ’ ’
The Chancellor on final hearing on bill and answer, cross complaint and answer and testimony, decreed the equities to be with the defendant and dismissed the bill. From that decree the complainants appealed.
The suit was begun by Mrs. L. W. Duncan, joined by her husband, L. W. Duncan, in December 1920. In March, 1921, Mrs. Duncan died and the suit was revived in the name of L. W. Duncan, her husband, who filed an amended bill of complaint in June, 1921, in which he alleged himself to be sole devisee and sole executor of the will of Mrs. Duncan.
About July 2, 1922, L. W. Duncan died and during that month the suit was revived in the names.of the appellants. The defendant had demurred to the amended bill and the demurrer had been overruled and had answered the bill incorporating a prayer for affirmative relief to which L. W. Duncan had replied and the cause had been referred to a Special Master to take testimony about nine months before L. W. Duncan died.
The Master made his report on the 15th day of August, 1922. The evidence is quite voluminous, consisting of the testimony of witnesses and many documents.
We have discovered in the record no cause for the re versal of the decree. The Chancellor’s findings of fact set out in his decree were fully justified by the evidence.
The contention of the appellants that it was the purpose of the parties to the conveyance at the time the deed was executed to create a resulting trust in favor of the grantor, Mrs. Griswold, and her mother, Mrs. Ingersoll, upon the lands was not sustained. See Semple v. Semple, — Fla. —, 105 South. Rep. 134.
The findings of the Chancellor upon the facts will not be reversed unless it clearly appears that he erred in his conclusions. See Whidden v. Rogers, 78 Fla. 93, 82 South. Rep. 611, Hill v. Beacham, 79 Fla. 430, 86 South. Rep. 147; Simpson v. First Nat. Bank of Pensacola, 74 Fla. 539, 77 South Rep. 204; Palm Beach Bank & Trust Co. v. Lainhart, 84 Fla. 662, 95 South. Rep. 122; Lasseter v. Long, 85 Fla. 439, 96 South. Rep. 841; Cobb v. Cobb, 82 Fla. 287, 89 South. Rep. 869; Waterman v. Higgins, 28 Fla. 660, 10 South. Rep. 97; Powell v. Powell, 77 Fla. 181, 81 South. Rep. 105; Manassee v. Dutton Bank, 75 Fla. 327, 78 South. Rep. 424; Johns v. Bowden, 72 Fla. 530, 73 South. Rep. 603.
The decree is therefore affirmed.
Brown, C. J., and Strum, J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the Opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jordan v. Jordan, 100 Fla. 1586 (Fla. 1931)…lief prayed. We think that the evidence supports the chancellor’s decree and as it is not made to appear that his findings were clearly erroneous the decree should stand affirmed. See Jackson v. Jackson, 80 Fla. 557, 86 So. R. 510; Burgess v. Wirt, 91 Fla. 425, 108 So. R. 169; Powell v. Powell, 77 Fla. 181, 81 So. R. 105; Kreher v. Morley, 84 Fla. 121, 92 So. R. 686. The decree is affirmed. Terrell, C. J., and Brown, J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and j…
-
Citizens State Bank v. Jones, 100 Fla. 1492 (Fla. 1930)…, strong and unequivocal as to remove every reasonable doubt as to the existence of the trust. Forrester v. Watts, 73 Fla. 514, 74 So. R. 519; Geter v. Simmons, 57 Fla. 423, 49 So. R. 131; Rogero v. Rogero, 66 Fla. 6, 62 So. R. 899; Burgess v. Wirt, 91 Fla. 425, 108 So. R. 169. In the case of Rogero v. Rogero, supra, it was held that “In a suit to have a constructive trust decreed, proof that is not full, clear and convincing, nor so clear,- strong and unequivocal as to remove every reasonable doubt as t…
-
Bethea v. Langford, 45 So.2d 496 (Fla. 1949)…asonable doubt as to the existence of the trust." Goldman v. Olsen, 159 Fla. 435, 31 So. 2d 623, 624; Powell v. Race, 151 Fla. 536, 10 So. 2d 142; Frank v. Eeles,152 Fla. 869, 13 So. 2d 216; Brown v. Brown, 106 Fla. 423,143 So. 737; Burgess v. Wirt, 91 Fla. 425, 108 So. 169; Johnston v. Sherehouse, 61 Fla. 647, 54 So. 892; Geter v. Simmons, 57 Fla. 423, 49 So. 131; Lofton v. Sterrett, 23 Fla. 565, 2 So. 837. From a careful study of the records and briefs we are of the conclusion that the evidence meets the…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Aden E. Waterman v. Reola A. Higgins, 28 Fla. 660 (Fla. 1891)
- Simpson v. The First Nat'l Bank of Pensacola, 74 Fla. 539 (Fla. 1917)
- Hill v. Braxton Beacham and Berta Beacham, 79 Fla. 430 (Fla. 1920)
- Semple v. Semple, 90 Fla. 7 (Fla. 1925)
- Cobb v. Cobb, 82 Fla. 287 (Fla. 1921)
- Powell v. Susanna Powell, 77 Fla. 181 (Fla. 1919)
- Whidden v. Rogers, 78 Fla. 93 (Fla. 1919)
- Palm Beach Bank & Tr. Co. v. Lainhart, 84 Fla. 662 (Fla. 1922)
- Johns v. Bowden, 72 Fla. 530 (Fla. 1916)
- Manasse v. The Dutton Bank, 75 Fla. 327 (Fla. 1918)