IN RE ESTATE OF LUDWIG SCHEIDIG, 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 from an order dismissing a petition for assignment of dower. The petitioner claimed to be the common-law wife of the deceased, but the court found the evidence unconvincing.
No, the evidence presented was unconvincing and did not clearly demonstrate the consummation of a common-law marriage.
“The order of dismissal was entered after appellant introduced evidence in support of her claim, and after she had rested her case.”
Establishes the procedural posture of the case at the trial level.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant petitioned for assignment of dower, claiming she was the common-law wife of the deceased, Ludwig Scheidig. The county judge dismissed her pe…
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 Assignment Of Dower cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a final order entered by the county judge of Volusia County dismissing appellant’s petition for assignment of dower in the estate of Ludwig Scheidig, deceased. The order of dismissal was entered after appellant introduced evidence in support of her claim, and after she had rested her case.
Appellant’s petition for dower is predicated upon the claim that she was the common-law wife of Ludwig Scheidig at the time of his death. The issue raised by her petition involved a mixed question of law and fact. The evidence adduced by appellant was unconvincing and susceptible of the inference that no common-law marriage was consummated between her and the decedent. From our review of the record we fail to find where appellant has clearly demonstrated error. The order appealed is accordingly affirmed.
WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., CARROLL, DONALD K., J., and W. L. FITZPATRICK, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carlton Lee Fields v. State, 202 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)….A. ch. 924 Appendix. It affirmatively appears from the record presented that the petition was properly denied by the trial court because the court will not consider successive petitions based upon the same ground. See Smith v. State, Fla. App.1965, 180 So. 2d 675; Whitney v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 184 So. 2d 207.…
-
Rankin v. State, 197 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 487; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 243; Carey v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So. 2d 603; Cole v. State. Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 698; Brown v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 34; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1965, 180 So. 2d 675; Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 667, and Ogilvie v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 710. We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 31 F.…
-
Earnest Byrd, Jr. v. State, 220 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…omplains that his counsel failed to call witnesses for his defense and this denied him a fair trial. This is without merit. Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 224; Jackson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 194; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1965, 180 So. 2d 675. Therefore, no error appearing in the convictions and judgments here under review, they are hereby affirmed. Affirmed. . The record indicates that he had two successive private counsel in the trial court. Our files indicate that after the public…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence