IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ELIZABETH D. MESKER, DECEASED; ETHEL DE JUMILHAC
v.
FLORIDA BANK & TRUST CO. AT WEST PALM BEACH, AS ANCILLARY ADMINISTRATOR CTA, ETC., AND ISABELLE OATES
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 probate court's finding and judgment regarding the identification of Item 26 were supported by sufficient evidence and should be affirmed.
The testatrix bequeathed a "pendant diamond brooch" as "Item 26" to one beneficiary and other jewelry to another. The sole question on appeal is wheth…
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 Appellate Review Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Elizabeth D. Mesker died testate. By her will she bequeathed a “pendant diamond brooch” designated as “Item 26” to Countess Ethel de Jumilhac. She bequeathed other jewelry to her sister, Isabelle Oates. For a fuller statement of the facts see State ex rel. Florida Bank & Trust Company, et al., v. White, 155 Fla. 591, 21 So. (2nd) 212.
The sole question here is the sufficiency and probative effect of the evidence to show whether or not Item 26 was the “pendant diamond brooch” bequeathed to Countess Ethel de Jumilhac.
The appellant contends that there is no competent legal evidence identifying Item 26 as the “pendant diamond brooch” bequeathed to Ethel de Jumilhac and that the effect of the evidence as a whole is to prove that Item 26 is not. and could not be the “pendant diamond brooch” described in Mrs. Mesker’s will.
The evidence has been thoroughly examined and some of it is such that another interpretation might have been drawn from it. Much of it is technical to a terminology that rarely passes the scrutiny of this Court, but it .was approved by the probate court and his judgment was approved by the Circuit Court. The probate court had the witnesses and the rem before him and we find no reason to overthrow his finding and judgment. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed, Watts v. Newport, 149 Fla. 181, 6 So. (2nd) 829.
Affirmed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL, BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Est. of Helen Page Winslow v. Patterson, 147 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…slow. The question is whether or not there was substantial competent evidence to support these conclusions. In re Reid’s Estate, Fla.App.1962, 138 So. 2d 342, 347; In re Zimmerman’s Estate, Fla. 1956, 84 So. 2d 560, 561; In re Mesker’s Estate, 1946, 158 Fla. 180, 28 So. 2d 260. We stress in this connection that the findings of the probate judge are given the same weight on appeal as the findings of any other trier of fact. Pancoast v. Pancoast, Fla.App.1958, 107 So. 2d 787. It is unnecessary in this opinio…
Authorities Cited
- Watts v. Newport, 149 Fla. 181 (Fla. 1941)
- THE City OF Leesburg v. Certain Lands upon which Taxes or Special Assessments, 155 Fla. 591 (Fla. 1945)
- Williams v. McClellan, 155 Fla. 625 (Fla. 1945)