FREDERICK W. SUTTON, ADMINISTRATOR, ESTATE OF EDWARD J. SUTTON, DECEASED, PETITIONER,

v.

WILBUR STEAR, ADMINISTRATOR, ESTATE OF GLADYS I. STEAR, DECEASED, RESPONDENT

DEKLE, Justice.

This certiorari results from inadvertent failure of the 4th District Court of Appeal to follow the precedent set forth in this Court’s holding in Smoak v. Graham, 167 So.2d 559 (Fla.1964), regarding what is an appealable order in probate. Instead the Fourth District at 254 So.2d 417 adhered to its own independent view to the contrary, as it did also in its decision on the same point in In re Estate of Forand, 182 So.2d 278 (Fla.App. 4th 1966). Conflict jurisdiction is apparent. Fla.Const. art. V, § 4(2), F.S.A.

Exercising discretion, we dispensed with oral argument pursuant to F.A.R. 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A.

The First District was willing to recognize this Court’s Smoak in receding from its holding as to jurisdiction to review in In re Estate of McClellan, 124 So.2d 501 (Fla.App. 1st 1960), without persisting in its same earlier view once Smoak appeared to the contrary. It held in its later case of Sessions v. Jelks, 194 So.2d 307 (Fla.App. 1st 1967), in accordance with Smoak when the question next arose.

Our Court in Ellard v. Godwin (Drew, J.), 77 So.2d 617 (Fla.1955), in speaking to this question of an extension of time in probate to file objections under Fla.Stat. § 733.18(2), F.S.A.1 had already indicated the county judge’s ruling thereon to be reviewable. We referred to In re Jeffries’ *840Estate, 136 Fla. 410, 181 So. 833 (1938), and stated: (Drew, J.) (p. 619)

“Reverting to In re Jeffries’ Estate, supra, we specifically pointed out that the action of the county judge in granting or refusing to grant such extensions of time contemplated by the statute was subject to judicial review. That holding, of course, is inherent in the opinions both in the Jeffries case and in Atlantic Nat. Bank v. Kirkwood, supra.” (152 Fla. 59, 10 So.2d 743)

Rule 5.100 of Probate and Guardianship Procedure is to the same effect.2

The facts here reveal that petitioner, Administrator of the Estate of Edward J. Sutton, deceased, filed a claim against the Estate of Gladys I. Stear, deceased, on January 26, 1971. The first publication of notice to creditors was on December 1, 1970, and therefore under F.S.A. § 733.-18(2) the last day for objecting to said claim was August 1, 1971. Respondent Administrator of the Estate of Gladys I. Stear, deceased, filed objections and served petitioner (claimant) with a copy thereof on August 16, 1971, or fourteen days after the expiration date under the statute. The County Judge, upon respondent’s petition, extended the time to file objections; claimant appealed on the basis that respondent estate failed to show “good cause” and that the County Judge abused his discretion in granting the time extension.

Respondent estate in its petition to extend time for filing objections stated essentially that it had not appeared necessary to file objections, that claimant is not prejudiced by the extension of time, and injustice would result if the extension is not granted. Its successful motion to dismiss the appeal in the district court was based on the contention that the order rendered by the county judge was an “interlocutory administrative order,” therefore is not final' and affords no basis for appeal, citing In re Estate of Forand, supra. It thereby traveled a closed road. The detour signs were already up in clear view in this court’s decision on the precise point in Smoak.

Respondent estate contends that there is no conflict with Smoak on the ground that our holding there is distinguished from the case at bar wherein the order granting extension was the only record before the district court; that there was no record on appeal of administrator’s objections to claim nor a petition for payment of claim, as in Smoak. Such additional record in Smoak dealt with the question of “good cause” on the merits of the matter in the second issue in that opinion (a matter for disposition upon consideration of that issue by the district court). Here we are, of course, dealing only with the “appealability” of the county judge’s order extending the time to file objections. The order is sufficient record. Moreover, the well-analyzed views expressed by then Chief Justice Drew in the Smoak opinion distinguish the two points there on appeal and also point out that “While the order appealed in the case at bar was framed as one denying payment of claim, the petition *841so styled was based solely upon a contest of the court’s prior order extending time for objections.” (emphasis added) Justice Drew then recites the basic controlling factor as to whether the probate order is appealable in the following language: (167 So.2d p. 561)

“We conclude, as above indicated, that the judicial labor of the probate court is complete, for purposes of review of a ruling under Section 733.18(2), at the point when recourse to suit in another court or defense of such independent action is required as a condition to any further consideration of the claim in probate. A time extension under the statute is logically unassailable thereafter in that or any other trial court, and the right of appeal should and does then accrue." (emphasis added)

Smoak then proceeds to a decision on the merits on “good cause” which we do not here consider.

The question of an appealable order in these circumstances could not be more clearly stated for guidance than it was in Smoak, wherein the opinion takes pains to state that its holding is set forth in order “to obtain a uniform construction among the districts with respect to finality of orders under Section 733.18, supra.” (at p. 560)

We accordingly adhere to Smoak in reaffirming that an order of a county judge under Fla.Stat. § 733.18(2), F.S.A., on an extension of time is a final determination on that subject of a party’s legal right thereon and is subject to appeal when rendered.

Certiorari is accordingly granted, and the order of the Fourth District Court dismissing the appeal is quashed with instructions to proceed to hear the appeal on the merits with regard to the question of whether “good cause” existed under Fla. Stat. § 733.18(2), F.S.A., for the county judge’s order extending time, and thereupon to consider such record as may be necessary on that further issue.

It further appears on this conflict consideration of the question that the earlier decision of the Fourth District of In re Estate of Forand, supra, is contrary to this Court’s controlling decision of Smoak v. Graham, supra, and is accordingly held to be in conflict with Smoak and not binding as precedent in the courts of this state.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ-, concur.