FIRST NATIONAL BANK, OF ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA, AS GUARDIAN OF THE ESTATE OF ALICE D. HILL, AN INSANE PERSON, AND ALICE D. HILL, BY HER GUARDIAN AS AFORESAID, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARGARET A. MACDONALD, ET AL., AS SURVIVING EXECUTORS OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF WILLIAM H. HILL, DECEASED, 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 whether a probate court has jurisdiction to allow a guardian to dissent from a will on behalf of an insane widow. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision, holding that such an election must be made through a court of chancery, not the probate court.
The probate judge does not have jurisdiction to allow a guardian to dissent from a will on behalf of an insane widow; this must be done through a court of chancery. Therefore, the circuit court's reversal of the probate court's order was correct.
“We think the decree of the Circuit Court was correct and it is hereby affirmed.”
The court's final decision on the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam H. Hill died testate, leaving a significant estate. His wife, Alice D. Hill, later became insane, and her guardian was appointed. The guardian…
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 Probate Of Will cases and more on FLexlaw
— William H. Hill, a citizen of St. Peters-burg, Florida, died testate in July, 1929, leaving a large and valuable estate. He had no children but after making liberal provisions for his wife and bequests to some relations and friends, he bequeathed the remainder of his estate to educational and charitable institutions. Soon after the testator’s death his wife became insane and the appellant was duly appointed as her guardian. The guardian of Mrs. Hill elected for her- to dissent from the provisions of the will and take a child’s part and petitioned the probate judge of Pinellas County to confirm such election. At this stage *675of the- proceedings, the executors of the will intervened and after hearing testimony submitted from both sides the probate judge entered his order ratifying and confirming the election made by the guardian to dissent from the terms of the will and take a child’s part. Prom this order the executors of the will, appellees here, prosecuted their appeal to the circuit court which reversed the decree of the probate court. The cause comes here on appeal from the decree of the circuit court.
In a well reasoned opinion, the circuit judge in effect held that if an election could be made for the insane widow it could be made only through a court of chancery and that the' probate judge had no jurisdiction in such matters. He also held that under the facts presented in this ease the will should stand.
We think the decree of the Circuit Court was correct and it is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Ellis, Whitfield and Buford, J. J., concur.