F. C. W. KRAMER, JR., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
D. C. SMITH AS TRUSTEE, ETC., 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 decree, holding that a trustee had the authority to sue without joining the beneficiaries as complainants and that the testimony supported the chancellor's findings.
The court held that the beneficiaries were not necessary parties complainant and that the testimony amply supported the chancellor's finding.
“This appeal presents two questions for our determination, viz: A lack of necessary parties complainant, and that the final decree is not supported by the testimony.”
States the issues presented on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee, Smith, acting as trustee for Dora E. and W. F. Bozeman, initiated a lawsuit. The appellants contended that the Bozemans should have been…
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 Sufficiency Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This appeal presents two questions for our determination, viz: A lack of necessary parties complainant, and that the final decree is not supported by the testimony.
The record discloses that the appellee, Smith, was trustee for Dora E. and W. F. Bozeman in which capacity he instituted this suit. It is contended that the Bozemans w'ere necessary parties to and should have been made parties complainant to the suit. Sec. 2561 Kev. Gen. Stats, of 1920 (being Sec. 4201 Comp. Gen. Laws of 1927) settles this question against appellants contention. See also Winer v. Trust Co. of Fla., 124 So. R. 35. We have examined the testimony carefully and it amply supports the finding of the Chancellor. Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.