JANIE ROLAND, ALIAS JENNIE ROLAND, APPELLANT,
v.
ROSA B. MATHEWS AND WILBUR M. ROLAND, A MINOR, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, FRED M. VALZ, APPELLEES
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.
This case concerns an appeal from an interlocutory decree of partition of Dade County lands. The central issue is whether the County Judge's Court of Duval County had jurisdiction to probate the will of William M. Roland, a question that determines the rights of all parties in the partition suit.
The chancellor's decree should be affirmed because the record contains substantial evidence supporting the chancellor's findings of fact, and a chancellor's conclusions on facts will not be reversed unless it clearly appears that he has erred.
“The rights of the parties depend entirely upon whether or not the County Judge's Court of Duval County, Florida, had jurisdiction to probate the last will and testament of one William M. Roland, deceased”
Establishes the central legal issue that determines the outcome of the entire partition suit
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam M. Roland's last will and testament was filed in the County Judge's Court of Duval County on December 9, 1924. The appeal arises from a partit…
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 Letters Testamentary cases and more on FLexlaw
Buford, J.
In this case the appeal is from an interlocutory decree of partition entered by the chancellor in a suit brought to partition certain lands in Dade county.
The rights of the parties depend entirely upon whether or not the County Judge’s Court of Duval County, Florida, had jurisdiction to-probate the last will and testament of one William M. Roland, deceased, which was filed in such-court on the 9th day of December, 1924, and to issue letters testamentary thereon.
The answer to the question of whether or not such court had such jurisdiction at the time it assumed to take such action must be found from the evidence introduced before an examiner and considered by the chancellor. Testimony was taken before a Master on issues properly made and presented, and was presented to the court without Master’s report, such report being waived.
The record shows substantial evidence supporting the decree of the chancellor. The rule in this State, that the finding of a chancellor based on testimony taken before an examiner will not be given the same effect as the verdict of a jury, but the chancellor ’s conclusions solely on facts will not be reversed unless it clearly appears that he has erred in such conclusions, is established by a long line of decisions of this court, as is also the rule that where there is a direct conflict in the testimony on which a decree is based, but there is evidence to support the decree, it will not be reversed. Lewter v. Price, 25 Fla. 574, 6 So. R. 439; Waters v. Southern Asphalt, etc., Co., 67 Fla. 440, 65 So. R. 457; Hogenoom v. Anderson, 70 Fla. 393, 70 So. R. 312; Sandlin v. Hunter Co., 70 Fla. 514, 70 So. R. 553; Rosenthal v. First Natl. Fire Ins. Co., 74 Fla. 371, 77 So. R. 92; Baldwin v. Christopher, 75 Fla. 605, 79 So. R. 339; Tatum v. City B. & L. Assn., 76 Fla. 258, 79 So. R. 839; McCook v. Caruthers, 87 Fla. 238, 99 So. R. 559; Travis v. Travis, 81 Fla. 309, 87 So. R. 762; Schafer v. Voyle, 88 Fla. 170, 102 So. R. 7; Edney v. Stinson, 90 Fla. 335, 105 So. R. 821.
We, finding that this Court in the instant case should not reverse the chancellor in his findings of fact, it is not needful to discuss assignments of error based on other grounds because if the chancellor is sustained in his findings on the facts the other assignments of error must in this case be disposed of adversely to the contentions of the appellant.
Finding no reversible error presented by the record, the decree should be affirmed. It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum, J., concur. Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bowery v. Searles Babbit, 99 Fla. 1151 (Fla. 1930)…testimony taken without the apparent opportunity to see and hear the witnesses, his conclusion is not on a par with the verdict of a jury, but his conclusion will not be disturbed unless it clearly appears to be [*1159] erroneous. Roland v. Mathews, 98 Fla. 695, 124 So. R. 34; Atlantic Bank & Tr. Co. v. Sengstak, 95 Fla. 606, 116 So. R. 267; Mock v. Thompson, 58 Fla. 477, 50 So. R. 673, and numerous other Florida cases. In the case now here, we cannot say from the evidence that it clearly appears that the…
-
The Century Tr. Co. of Baltimore v. The Allison Realty Co., 105 Fla. 456 (Fla. 1932)…ase the. Chancellor did not see and hear the witnesses, but his conclusion for that reason is none the less binding upon the Court, and it will not be disturbed unless it clearly appears to be erroneous. Bowery vs. Babbit, supra; Roland vs. Mathews, 98 Fla. 695, 124 So. 34; Atlantic Bank & Trust Co. vs. Segstak, 95 Fla. 606, 116 So. 267; Mock vs. Thompson, 58 Fla. 477, 50 So. 673. It appears from the testimony of Mr. Weaver, an official of the corporation that had the contract, that the last payroll was m…
-
Peterson v. Hancock, 146 Fla. 410 (Fla. 1941)…hinney v. Phinney, 77 Fla. 850, 82 Sou. 357; Hogeboom v. Anderson, 70 Fla. 393, 70 Sou. 312; Sandlin v. Hunter Co., 70 Fla. 514, 70 Sou. 553; Edney v. Stinson, 90 Fla. 335, 105 Sou. 821; Schaefer v. Voyle, 88 Fla. 170, 102 Sou. 7; Roland v. Mathews, 98 Fla. 695, 124 Sou. 34; Wilson v. Duncan, 92 Fla. 470, 112 Sou. 48; Cobb v. Cobb, 82 Fla. 287, 89 Sou. 869; Davidson v. Collier, 75 Fla. 783, 78 Sou. 983; Simpson v. First Nat. Bank, 74 Fla. 539, 77 Sou. 204; Kirkpatrick [*413] v. Hindman, 95 Fla. 880, 882, 1…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Travis v. Sim Travis, 81 Fla. 309 (Fla. 1921)
- Giles v. Garland, 70 Fla. 514 (Fla. 1915)
- Rosenthal v. First Nat'l Fire Ins. Co. of the United States, 74 Fla. 371 (Fla. 1917)
- Schaefer v. Voyle, 88 Fla. 170 (Fla. 1924)
- Edney v. Stinson, 90 Fla. 335 (Fla. 1925)
- Linnie W. Lewter v. Price, 25 Fla. 574 (Fla. 1889)
- Cornelia C. Baldwin v. Christopher, 75 Fla. 605 (Fla. 1918)
- Hogeboom v. Anderson, 70 Fla. 393 (Fla. 1915)
- McCook v. Caruthers, 87 Fla. 238 (Fla. 1924)
- Waters v. S. Asphalt & Constr. Co., 67 Fla. 440 (Fla. 1914)