MATTIE UNDERHILL DURRANCE
v.
W. H. UNDERHILL
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 court held that the order denying a decree on bill and answer did not dismiss the bill of complaint and that factual issues required testimony.
Plaintiff based her claim on a fiduciary relationship arising from the settlement of an estate, alleging the respondent took advantage of his position…
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 Equitable Principles cases and more on FLexlaw
It will be observed that this suit was, and is, one against W. H. Underhill as an individual and not as administrator. The relator does not base her claim on the statute of descent and distribution or upon the provisions of a will but under a claim of right arising out of fiduciary relations. That such relation grew out of the settlement of an estate is only incidental ; therefore, that the circuit court had jurisdiction.
The order here under review did not dismiss the bill of complaint but denied decree on bill and answer.
I think the bill contains sufficient allegations to show that at the time of the transaction the position of the respondent was such that he could not disregard the interest of his brother and sister, and without their knowledge or consent, make a secret deal concerning the property involved except as the fiduciary of his brother and sister. It is alleged, in effect, that by the joint action of the three, respondent was placed in a position of trust and confidence and in a position which gave him an advantage in dealing with the widow of the deceased.
If the allegations of the bill be true and he did so deal, then the benefits of the deal should in equity and good conscience enure to the benefit of all three.
The answer presents issues of fact which may only be determined by the taking of testimony.
The order appealed from requires the parties to proceed to trial on the issues made.
I have written these views because it appears from the briefs of both parties that they construe the order of the chancellor as holding that plaintiff has stated no case on which she can recover. Such holding is not reflected by the record.
Certiorari is denied.
TERRELL, CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The City OF Miami v. Carter, 105 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1958)…ts is not sufficient injury, embarrassment or disadvantage to warrant invocation of the doctrine of laches. See Jumper Creek Drainage Dist. v. State ex rel. Davis, 1945, 155 Fla. 669, 21 So. 2d 459; Smith v. City of Winter Haven, 1944, 154 Fla. 439, 18 So. 2d 4. We, therefore conclude that the firemen are not barred in this action by laches. Finally, we are presented with the question by the firemen whether the lower court should have decreed that the City pay into the special fund for the firemen intere…
-
Dacus v. Blackwell, 90 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1956)…and judgments of the Probate Court”. We do not construe the bill of complaint to be an attack on the orders of the probate court. It is a suit against the estate of Maude Feaster, individually. The case of Durrance v. Underhill, 1944, 154 Fla. 437, 18 So. 2d 4, is in point and decides this contention against the defendant. See also First Nat. Bank of Colorado Springs v. McGuire, 7 Cir., 1950, 184 F. 2d 620. Defendant next contends that the statute of limitations had run against the plaintiffs and that th…
-
Kittel v. Simmonite, 152 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…s an administrator, and does not challenge the orders of the probate court. Cases which are closely in point on the facts and support appellant’s contention that his amended complaint stated a cause of action are Durrance v. Underhill, 154 Fla. 437, 18 So. 2d 4, and Dacus v. Blackwell, supra, Fla.1956, 90 So. [*818] 2d 324. See also Gerlach v. Donnelly, Fla. 1957, 98 So. 2d 493, 498; First National Bank of Colorado Springs v. McGuire, 7 Cir., 1950, 184 F. 2d 620, 626. Cf. Deal v. Migoski, Fla.App.1960, 122…