JAMES ITHAL NESMITH, NATHANIEL NESMITH AND EUNICE NESMITH,
v.
BRONNIE MAE NESMITH
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 statute concerning homestead descent does not deprive lineal descendants of vested constitutional rights.
Children of the deceased appealed a judgment concerning the constitutionality of a statute governing homestead descent.…
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 Vested Remainder cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal questions the constitutionality of Sec. 731.277 F. S. ’41, F.S.A., which reads:
“The homestead shall descend as other property; provided, however, that if the decedent be survived by a widow and lineal descendants, the widow shall take a life estate in the homestead, with vested remainder to the lineal descendants in being at the time of the death of decedent.”
The appellants, children of the deceased, contend:
“. . . that under.the Constitution they have a present vested interest in the property under the Constitution and that the above statutes deprive them of their rights under the Constitution and are therefore void.”
Appellant is of the opinion that he has vested interest in the real property in question by virtue of Sections 1 and 2 of Article X of our Constitution. In this he is mistaken. The point has been decided and we affirm the judgment on authority of Hinson, et al., v. Booth, 39 Fla. 333, 22 So. 687.
Affirmed.
TERRELL, BROWN and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
CHAPMAN, C. J., THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., agree to conclusion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilson v. Fla. Nat. Bank & Tr. Co. at Miami, 64 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 1953)…of the head of the family which the homestead enjoyed during decedent’s lifetime continues to exist for the benefit of the widow and lineal descendants. Hinson v. Booth, as Execeutors, etc., 39 Fla. 333, 22 So. 687; Nesmith v. Nesmith, 155 Fla. 823, 21 So. 2d 789. Counsel for Mrs. Fuchs summarizes his contentions by saying: that any claim of homestead in the thirty-five acres was entirely dependent upon the.home place, the title to which was jointly held by the husband and wife, as tenants by the entirety;…
Authorities Cited
- Bartlett A. Hinson v. Booth, 39 Fla. 333 (Fla. 1897)