ROSE V. RAFFELL, A SINGLE WOMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
J. A. DANN, SOMETIMES KNOWN AS JOSEPH A. DANN, AND SARAH DANN, HIS WIFE, AND EDYTHE DANN, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decree due to an equal division among the justices, establishing a precedent for affirming decrees when the court is equally divided.
When the members of the Supreme Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to whether a decree should be affirmed or reversed, and there is no prospect of immediate change in the court's composition, the decree should be affirmed.
“In this cause Mr. Chief Justice Buford, Mr. Justice Whitfield and Mr. Justice Ellis are of opinion that the decree of the Circuit Court should be reversed and the cause remanded while Mr. Justice Terrell, Mr. Justice Brown and Mr. Justice Davis are of opinion that the said decree should be affirmed.”
Describes the division among the justices.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved an appeal of a decree from the Circuit Court. The Florida Supreme Court heard the case with six justices.…
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.
— In this cause Mr. Chief Justice Buford, Mr. Justice Whitfield and Mr. Justice Ellis are of opinion that the decree of the Circuit Court should be reversed and the cause remanded while Mr. Justice Terrell, Mr. Justice Brown and Mr. Justice Davis are of opinion that the said decree should be affirmed. When the members of the Supreme Court, sitting six members in a body and after full consultation, it appears that the members of the Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to whether the decree should be affirmed or reversed, and there is no prospect of an immediate change in the personnel of the Court, the decree should be affirmed; therefore it is considered, ordered and adjudged under the authority of State ex rel. Hampton, v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 So. R. 51, that the decree of the Circuit Court in this cause be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Murphy v. Murphy, 125 Fla. 855 (Fla. 1936)…n in a particular instance. Redfearn, Wills and Administration of Estates in Florida, page 222; Wallace v. Wallace, 118 Fla. 844, 160 Sou. Rep. 377; Sorrels v. McNally, 89 Fla. 657, 105 Sou. Rep. 106. Compare: Lowrimore v. First Savings & Trust Co., 102 Fla. 740, 140 Sou. Rep. 887, 891. Sell also: In re Portuondo’s Estate, 185 Pa. St. 503, 39 Atl. Rep. 1105; In re: Vance’s Estate, 141. Pa. St. 201, 21 Atl. Rep. 643. Neither is the rule that the election of the- widow to take against the will is equivalent…
-
Mosgrove v. Mach, 133 Fla. 459 (Fla. 1938)…5 Fla. 51; Floyd v. Smith, 59 Fla. 485, 51 So. 537, 138 Am. St. Rep. 133, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 651, 21 Ann. Cas. 318. “And it should prevail against any perversion of words from their usual meaning. Lowrimore v. First Sav., etc., Co., 102 Fla. 740, 140 So. 887.” 13 Enc. Digest Fla. Repts. 346. See also McClelland’s Exr. v. McClelland, 132 Ky. 284; DePass v. Kansas Masonic Home, filed at this term. In a will the words, “will and bequeath,” may be sufficient to pass the title to real estate and to personal…
-
Belle Brickell and Maude E. Brickell v. DiPietro, 145 Fla. 23 (Fla. 1940)…ls. See Rewis v. Rewis, 79 Fla. 126, 84 So. 93. The whole instrument should be considered by the court in determining the intention of the testator as expressed in his last will and testament. See Lowrimore v. First Savings, etc., Co., 102 Fla. 740, 140 So. 887; Wallace v. Wallace, 118 Fla. 844, 160 So. 377; Musgrove v. Mach, 133 Fla. 459, 182 So. 786. It was not the intention of Mary Briekell, as expressed in her last will and testament, to make testamentary disposition of her homestead, but to provide t…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Hiram J. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1904)