C. C. GREENE,
v.
BILLIE GREENE, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS BILLIE BONE, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS BILLIE GRIFFIN, ET AL.
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 evidence presented sustained the chancellor's decree, finding no procedural error.
C. C. Greene settled a dispute over his son's estate with Billie Greene, receiving a portion of the estate. C. C. Greene later sought to rescind the s…
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 Common Law Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
C. C. Greene filed a bill to rescind a contract of compromise and settlement which he had made with one Billie Greene.
Theretofore, Paul Greene, son of the plaintiff, died intestate and both C. C. Greene and Billie Greene claimed his estate. The father claimed that his son died intestate and without widow or child. Billie Greene claimed as the common law wife. The claimants ended the controversy by an agreement in writing whereby C. C. Greene received approximately $13,500 of an estate variously valued at from $40,000 to $80,000.
Thereafter C. C. Greene filed his bill to rescind the contract on the ground of fraud. The specific charge being that Billie Greene had a living husband before she met his son and therefore she had no capacity to enter into a common law marriage; that Billie Greene concealed this former marriage and he was without knowledge of same until after the agreement of settlement.
In the final analysis the question for us to decide is whether the decree appealed from is sustained by the evidence. We are not called upon to determine whether, in fact, Billie Greene had a living husband. It is the unquestioned law that if she had a living husband she was incapable of contracting a common law marriage. The contending parties foreclosed that question however by the contract. We are concerned on this appeal with the charge that Billie Greene withheld knowledge that she had a living husband from C. C. Greene until he entered into the agreement.
*344The decree is based on conflicting testimony, although substantial, that the parties were negotiating for a settlement and C. C. Greene called Billie Greene via telephone and asked her about her former marriage and thereupon laid claim to the whole estate. The negotiations then took an immediate turn in favor of the father of approximately $3,000.00.
We have studied the record and are of the opinion that the evidence sustains the decree of the chancellor. We find no error of procedure and affirm the decree.
Affirmed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Odell v. Burton R. Signer and David Marks, 169 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…ation in this state, shall be conclusively presumed to be operating, conducting, engaging in or carying on a business or business venture in this state.” . Crockin v. Boston Store of Ft. Myers, 137 Fla. 853, 188 So. 853 (1939). . Greene v. Greene, 156 Fla. 342, 22 So. 2d 792 (1945). . Berkman v. Ann Lewis Shops, 246 F. 2d 44 (2d Cir. 1957). . Notes 2 and 4, supra; see also James v. Kush, Fla.App.1963, 157 So. 2d 203; Hayes v. Greenwald, Fla.App.1963, 149 So. 2d 586. . 1 Fla.Jur., Agency § 74; Prosser,…
-
Scutti v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla., 220 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…osition was ill-founded and the compromise without consideration. I cannot agree. What defendants are seeking is a decision that the validity of the compromise turns on the merits of their contention. This is not permissible. Greene v. Greene, 1945, 156 Fla. 342, 22 So. 2d 792. True if the actions of the county were so patently invalid that it could be said its claim was ill-founded, then defendants’ position might be sustained. See 15 Am.Jur.2d, Compromise and Settlement, § 15. Such is not the case here.…
-
Burke v. Burke, 447 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…firm. The prior valid marriage of Ernest to Ola Allen Burke made it impossible for Lydia and Ernest to establish a common law marriage as long as the valid marriage existed. Porter v. La Fe, 68 So. 2d 602 (Fla.1953); Greene v. Greene, 156 Fla. 342, 22 So. 2d 792 (1945). Additionally, the fact that Lydia and Ernest continued to live together and hold themselves out as husband and wife after Ernest and Ola dissolved their marriage served no purpose in establishing a common law marriage between them because in…