ELLA L. WILSON (WIDOW)
v.
CHARLES DAVIS AND ANNIE DAVIS, HIS WIFE
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 the dismissal of a bill of complaint seeking to establish a resulting trust, holding that the evidence presented was insufficient to meet the clear, strong, and unequivocal standard required for such trusts.
No, the evidence was not legally sufficient to establish a resulting trust because it did not meet the required standard of proof.
“the testimony relied upon to establish a resulting trust must be clear, strong and unequivocal.”
This quote states the legal standard required to prove a resulting trust, which was central to the court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff (appellant) presented evidence and exhibits in an attempt to establish a resulting trust. The lower court dismissed the bill of complain…
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.
On this appeal counsel for appellant contend that the evidence and exhibits adduced by the plaintiff below were legally sufficient to justify the entry of a final decree establishing a resulting trust. Our study of all the testimony has been made in the light of this contention and we have reached the conclusion that the order dismissing the bill of complaint was free from error and within the rule previously enunciated by this Court. The rule is that the testimony relied upon to establish a resulting trust must be clear, strong and unequivocal. See Lofton v. Sterrett, 23 Fla. 565, 2 So. 837; McGill v. Chappelle, 71 Fla. 479, 71 So. 836; Lange v. Lange, 133 Fla. 447, 182 So. 807, and similar cases.
Affirmed.
THOMAS, C. J., TERRELL and CHAPMAN, JJ., and FABISINSKI, Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lyng v. RAO, 72 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1954)…hin the contemplation of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.” If the claimant was injured by lightning (it being conceded she was engaged in her employment at the time) she is entitled to compensation. Fort Pierce Growers Ass’n v. Storey, 158 Fla. 192, 29 So. 2d 205. Our study of the record in this case convinces us that the Deputy Commissioner fell into error because the effect of his construction of the word “trauma” limited, it to an outwardly visible bodily injury; a wound visible to the eye such as a cut,…
Authorities Cited
- Rosa Chappelle McGill and her husband S. D. McGill v. Chappelle, 71 Fla. 479 (Fla. 1916)
- Lofton v. Sterrett, 23 Fla. 565 (Fla. 1887)
- Lange v. Lange, 133 Fla. 447 (Fla. 1938)