S. H. BARRY
v.
WILLIAM J. WALKER, ET AL., AS EXECUTORS OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF C. A. MEACHAM, DECEASED
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 involves an appeal of a will probate matter where S. H. Barry sought to revoke the will of C. A. Meacham as a forgery. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions admitting the will to probate after hearing additional evidence as directed in a prior remand.
The Florida Supreme Court held that the will was genuine and properly probated. The preponderance of the evidence supported the authenticity and genuineness of the will, and the lower courts' decisions denying revocation were proper.
“the petitioner has failed to in any respect prove the allegations of his petition, and further finds that the respondents' have by the testimony produced on their behalf, fully established the authenticity and genuineness of said last will of the said C. A. Meacham, deceased.”
The County Judge's finding that the petitioner failed to prove the will was a forgery and that the respondents established its authenticity
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceC. A. Meacham's will was probated by the County Judge. S. H. Barry petitioned to revoke the will, alleging it was a forgery and not the will of the de…
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 Petition For Revocation Of Probate cases and more on FLexlaw
On a former appeal herein a decree of County Judge affirmed by the Circuit Court refusing to revoke the probate of a will on grounds that the purported will was not the will of the decedent, was reversed and the cause was remanded with directions for further indicated proceedings. Barry v. Walker, 103 Fla. 533, 137 So. 711.
*59. Further testimony has been taken before the County Judge whose decree in the case contains the following:
“In accordance with directions given by the Supreme Court of Florida in this case in a mandate duly filed, the Court personally heard additional testimony on behalf of the petitioner and read depositions of the respondents in accordance with the prayer of the motion to reopen said case, filed by the respondents.
“The Court further finds from all the evidence introduced in said case that the petitioner has failed to in any respect prove the allegations of his petition, and further finds that the respondents' have by the testimony produced on their behalf, fully established the authenticity and genuineness of said last will of the said C. A. Meacham, deceased.
. “It is therefore Considered, Ordered and Adjudged that the said petition for revocation of the said last will of C. A. Meacham, deceased, be, and the same is hereby denied.”
On appeal the Circuit Court entered a decree containing the following:
“I have carefully read the entire record, including the additional testimony which was taken in the County Judge’s Court, and I am satisfied by the overwhelming weight of the evidence that the will is genuine and not a forgery as contended by the appellant.
“For the reason assigned, the judgment of the County Judge’s Court admitting the will to probate is affirmed.”
■ An appeal was taken to this court from the affirming decree of the County Judge.
. “Because the preponderance of the evidence proved that the will probated as the will of C. A. Meacham, deceased, was a forgery, and should not have been probated as the *60last will and testament of the said C. A. Meacham, deceased, and should be revoked as prayed in the petition of S. H. Barry.”
A careful consideration of the record leads to the conclusion that there is ample legal evidence to sustain the decree of the County Judge affirmed by the Circuit Court, and that on the whole record the decree is not erroneous; it is therefore
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Turnipseed v. Turnipseed, 158 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)…granted or withheld by the chancellor in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, citing Thompson v. Thompson, 86 Fla. 515, 98 So. 589; and further held that the same is true under F.S. section 65.09, F.S.A., citing Condon v. Condon, 117 Fla. 98, 157 So. 177. Moyer v. Moyer, 114 So. 2d 638 (Fla.App.1959), is a case in which the record on appeal contained only the pleadings in the case. The Third District Court of Appeal, Pearson, J., affirmed on the ground that the court was unable to determine the pro…
-
McFARLIN v. McFARLIN, 75 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1954)…d or withheld by the chancellor in the exercise of sound judicial discretion. Thompson v. Thompson, 86 Fla. 515, 98 So. 589, cited in the quoted portion of the final decree, supra. The same is true under Section 65.09, Condon v. Condon, 117 Fla. 98, 157 So. 177. In fact, although Section 65.09 provides in part that “the court shall have power to grant such temporary and permanent alimony and suit money as the circumstances of the parties may render just”, while Section 65.10 states that “the court shall ma…
-
Driggers v. Pearson, 141 Fla. 256 (Fla. 1940)…bill of complaint is not essentially in issue on an application for temporary alimony, solicitors’ fees and costs, as such amendable defects as may appear in the bill may be amended prior to the entry of final decree. Condor v. Condor, 117 Fla. 98, 157 So. 177. See also in this connection, Miller v. Miller, 33 Fla. 453, 15 So. 222. Plaintiff in error contends that the citation for contempt does not affirmatively show that he is able to comply with its terms. This citation was issued June 6, 1939, and hea…
Authorities Cited
- Holmes v. The Atl. Nat'l Bank of Jacksonville, 103 Fla. 1071 (Fla. 1932)
- Barry v. Walker, 103 Fla. 533 (Fla. 1931)