LEVONIA HARDIN BULLARD, HUGH CARTER, AND FANNIE CARTER, HIS WIFE, ET AL.,
v.
W. F. WALKER
LEVONIA HARDIN BULLARD, HUGH CARTER, AND FANNIE CARTER, HIS WIFE, ET AL.,
W. F. WALKER
127 Fla. 20
Florida Supreme Court (1937)
Caution
Also reported at: 172 So. 363
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
This is a companion case to thát of T. G. Lockwood, et ux., and Plugh Carter, et ux., et al., v. W. F. Walker, as trustee; etc., et al., opinion filed at this term of court.
■ The controlling questions presented are the same as those presented in the other case and the orders and decrees appealed from are affirmed on authority of the opinion and judgment in that case.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and WtiitfiEld, Terrell, Brown -and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Saliba v. James, 143 Fla. 404 (Fla. 1940)…ation and void ab initio, and at the time of each transfer, as set out in the bill of complaint, John F. James was insane. The Florida cases cited to sustain this view are, viz.: In re: Donnelly Estate, 137 Fla. 459, 188 So. 108; Lockwood v. Walker, 127 Fla. 20, 172 So. 359; Rich v. Hallman, 106 Fla. 348, 143 So. 292; Sheppard v. Cherry, 118 Fla. 473, 159 So. 661; Sapp v. Warner, 105 Fla. 245, 141 So. 124; Douglas v. Ogle, 80 Fla. 42, 85 So. 243. We have carefully examined the authorities cited by counsel…
-
Leonard v. Browne, 134 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)…d by statute, and as an incident to the main relief may determine questions of right arising out of the relation existing between the parties at the time of the occurrence of the incidents giving rise to differences between them. Lockwood v. Walker, 127 Fla. 20, 172 So. 359. In that case, however, the court restricted application of the rule to controversies directly affecting the partition proper, such as those involving the legal title and right of possession. In the case now on review, the accounting so…
-
Futura Realty, Inc. v. Wigdor, 421 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…regardless of his motives and any equitable defenses to such action should be presented therein and not in an independent action. Condrey v. Condrey, 92 So. 2d 423 (Fla.1957); Williams v. Ricou, 143 Fla. 360, 196 So. 667 (1940); Lockwood v. Walker, 127 Fla. 20, 172 So. 359 (1937); Montgomery v. Carlton, 99 Fla. 152, 126 So. 135 (1930). We also find no error in the trial judge recognizing by the entry of a summary judgment that a party who owns in fee-simple1 an interest in real property does not have to…