SILAS KEARNES ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
L. L. HILL ET AL., 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 decision, holding that a widow who elected to take a child's part of her deceased husband's estate, and who sought to recover her interest from subsequent purchasers, had an adequate remedy at law and failed to allege notice of her equitable claim against the purchasers.
Yes, the widow had an adequate remedy at law. No, she did not sufficiently allege notice of her equitable claim against the purchasers, thus they took the property free of her claim.
“If we are to understand from the language of this bill that she has elected to take a child’s part, and has also a present right to the possession and enjoyment of her share of the land as such, then Mrs. Kearnes has her remedy at law by ejectment to recover her undivided interest or child’s part in the property from Hill and Lassiter.”
Establishes the availability of a legal remedy for the widow.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe widow, Mrs. Kearnes, elected to take a child's part of her deceased husband's intestate estate. She sought an injunction to recover her share of t…
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 Widow'S Election cases and more on FLexlaw
Me. Justice Raney
delivered the opinion of the court:
Where there are children and the husband dies intestate, the widow, if she elects to take a child’s part, takes as widow, and not as an héir; and such is the case where she dissents from the will, and elects to take a child’s part, there being also children of the husband surviving him. If we are to understand from the language of this bill that she has elected to take a child’s part, and has also a present right to the possession and enjoyment of her share of the land as such, then Mrs. Kearnes has her remedy at law by ejectment to recover her undivided interest or child’s part in the property from Hill and Lassiter. Gale et ux., vs. Hines, 17 Fla., 773 ; Harrell vs. Harrell, 8 Fla., 52.
If we assume that the agreement of itself created, and is relied apon by Mrs. Kearnes as having itself created an equitable right in her, as against the children, to a conveyance of an undivided one-fourth interest in the land from them, as heirs at law, (or as devisees, if the will covered the property,) holding the' legal title, there is still no allegation in the bill of notice upon the part of Hill and Lassiter of such equitable right as of the time of their purchase; nor is there any allegation of fraud on their part; and consequently they took the property discharged of her equita ble claim. 1 Sugden on Vendors, 272, (top paging,) note q.
It is not necessary for us to look beyond the bill and the demurrer to decide this case, and looking at it in any light we can see no ground for an injunction.
The decree is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coogler v. Rogers, 25 Fla. 853 (Fla. 1889)
-
Myers v. Van Buskirk, 96 Fla. 704 (Fla. 1928)…onveyance of the legal title in good faith, for value, and without notice, actual or constructive, of an agreement to convey previously entered into by the grantor with a third person, will be protected against such prior agreement. Kearnes v. Hill, 21 Fla. 185; Pomeroy Spec. Perf., Secs. 314, 464, et seq.; 25 R. C. L. 327; 27 R. C. L. 562. See also Rambo [*711] v. Dickerson, 110 So. R. 352; Williams v. Neeld-Gordon Co., 86 Fla. 59, 97 So. R. 315; West Coast Lbr. Co. v. Griffin, 56 Fla. 878, 48 So. R. 36.…
Authorities Cited
- Gale v. Hines, 17 Fla. 773 (Fla. 1880)