J. D. SHERMAN, APPELLAMT,
v.
D. FORD, APPELLEE
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 reversed a lower court's decision, holding that the property owner was indeed the head of a family residing in the state and thus entitled to homestead protection.
Yes, the court held that Sherman was the head of a family residing in the state. The evidence supported his claim to homestead status.
“The only question presented is whether or not Sherman was at the time of the rendition of the judgment and at the time of filing the Bill of Complaint the “head of a family residing in this State”.”
This quote defines the central legal issue of the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ. D. Sherman claimed his property was his homestead. The lower court found he was not the head of a family residing in the state. Evidence showed he …
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 Head Of A Family cases and more on FLexlaw
— This was a suit to enjoin the sale of property alleged in the Bill of Complaint to have been at that time the homestead of J. D. Sherman, the head of a family then residing thereon with this family.
The only question presented is whether or not Sherman was at the time of the rendition of the judgment and at the time of filing the Bill of Complaint the “head of a family residing in this State”. The Chancellor held that he was not. We find no evidence sufficient to support the finding that the homestead claimant was not at all times *612from February, 1927, until the occurrence of this suit the 'head of a family residing in this State. The evidence showed that he was a registered elector in Highlands County since February, 1927. There is much evidence to show that prior to 1927 he had not been a permanent resident of Florida but he had the right to- adopt this State as the place of his permanent residence at any time and the uncontradicted evidence is that he did this before judgment; that he was at the time residing on the property, with his wife and as his home.
Under the showing made by the evidence, the -decree should be reversed with directions that the injunction be made permanent. It is so ordered.
Reversed.
Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis and Terrell, J.J., concur.
Brown and Davis, J. J., dissent.