MACNEILL
v.
MARKS ET UX.
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision dismissing a creditor's bill, finding that the property in question was purchased with the wife's separate funds, not the husband's.
The property was purchased with the wife's separate funds, and the creditor's bill was properly dismissed.
“After voluminous testimony was taken before a Special Master, appointed at the request of the appellant, he filed his report and found from the testimony that Kate Marks, purchased the property being sued upon from funds accummulated by her through previous real estate transactions as a free dealer.”
Establishes the Special Master's key factual finding regarding the source of funds for the property purchase.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant held a judgment against the husband and filed a creditor's bill and bill for discovery of assets. After extensive testimony, a Special M…
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 Creditor'S Bill cases and more on FLexlaw
MATHEWS, Justice.
A final decree was entered on a creditor’s bill and bill for discovery of assets of the husband against whom the appellant held a judgment.
After voluminous testimony was taken before a Special Master, appointed at the request of the appellant, he filed his report and found from the testimony that Kate Marks, purchased the property being sued upon from funds accummulated by her through previous real estate transactions as a free dealer. Exceptions to the report were filed by the appellant and the Chancellor entered an order denying the exceptions. Thereafter the final decree was entered based upon the bill, answer, testimony, and report of the Special Master, finding that the property was purchased with funds of the wife and not with funds sif the husband, and dismissing the bill of complaint. No purpose could be served by a recital of the testimony. The report of the Master and the final decree of the Chancellor were based upon questions of fact and from conflicting testimony. There was sufficient testimony in the record to justify the conclusions and findings of the Master and of the Chancellor, and that Kate Marks had sustained the burden placed upon her. This case is controlled by the cases of Thompson v. Field, Fla., 54 So. 2d 520, Bethea v. Langford, Fla., 45 So. 2d 496, and Ball v. Ball, 160 Fla. 601, 36 So. 2d 172.
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and DREW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Fowler, 480 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 1985)…provide the second layer of coverage since Travelers’ insured, Enterprise Leasing, is only vicariously liable under Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine. The dangerous instrumentality doctrine is explained in Chase and Company of Benefield, 64 So. 2d 922, 924 (Fla.1953): [T]he owner of an automobile is charged with knowledge that it is a dangerous instrumentality.... Under the laws of this state, if the owner once gives his express or implied consent to another to operate his automobile, he is liab…
-
Leonard v. Susco CAR Rental Sys. OF Fla., Inc., 103 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…s been given and the agent has exceeded his authority in the use made of an automobile, it appears that the liability of the owner will not be altered because of a departure beyond the scope of the authority.8 In Chase & Co. v. Benefield, Fla.1953, 64 So. 2d 922, 924, the driver was the employee of the owner and had custody of the automobile on week-ends. The owner was held liable even though the Court found: “It may be that he (the driver) was instructed by the owner not to use the truck except to haul the…
-
Ball v. Inland Mut. Ins. Co., 121 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…dict for the insurance company was wrong, and that it should be required to meet the prima facie case against it. . Herr v. Butler, 101 Fla. 1125, 132 So. 815, 816; Greene v. Miller, 102 Fla. 767, 136 So. 532. . Chase & Co. v. Benefield, Fla.1953, 64 So. 2d 922. . Chase & Co. v. Benefield, supra note 2. . City Grocery Co. v. Cothron, 117 Fla. 322, 157 So. 891, 892. . Lynch v. Walker, 159 Fla. 188, 31 So. 2d 268. . Weber v. Porco, Fla.1958, 100 So. 2d 146, 149. . Boggs v. Butler, 129 Fla. 324, 176 So.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bethea v. Langford, 45 So.2d 496 (Fla. 1949)
- Ball v. Ball, 160 Fla. 601 (Fla. 1948)
- Riddle v. State, 160 Fla. 652 (Fla. 1948)