A.R. Douglass, Inc., v. Mcrainey

Decision Date08 October 1931
Citation137 So. 157,102 Fla. 1141
PartiesA. R. DOUGLASS, Inc. v. McRAINEY.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Commissioners' Decision.

Error to Circuit Court, Orange County; Frank A. Smith, Judge.

Action by A. R. Douglass, Incorporated, against Mary L. McRainey, as administratrix of the estate of W. H. McRainey, deceased. To review a final judgment for the defendant, plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court.

SYLLABUS

The intention and meaning of the Legislature must primarily be determined from the language of the statute itself, and not from conjectures aliunde. When the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion for resorting to the rules of statutory interpretation and construction; the statute must be given its plain and obvious meaning.

Where a claim against an estate has not been sworn to and filed with the county judge within one year from the first publication of notice, the fact that an action at law was brought in the circuit court on such claim before the expiration of such time does not of itself prevent the statute of nonclaim from being a bar to recovery.

COUNSEL

Clark W. Jennings and W. H. Poe, both of Orlando for plaintiff in error.

Dickinson & Dickinson, of Orlando, for defendant in error.

OPINION

MATHEWS C.

This action was brought on January 23, 1929, for accrued rental taxes paid by plaintiff on leased lands, repairs made to buildings on leasehold property, damages for failure to construct and complete additions to buildings, and for future rentals.

The amended declaration sets forth that A. R. Douglass was the owner of a lot in Orlando, Fla., on which was located a building; that on August 5, 1924, Douglass and wife entered into a 99-year lease on this property with J. B. Warren; that on December 1, 1924, J. B. Warren assigned the lease to W. H McRainey, the latter agreeing to abide by the terms of the lease and assuming all obligations thereunder; that Douglass agreed to the assignment; that McRainey went into possession of the premises and remained in possession of the premises until about the first week in May, 1928, when he vacated the premises and abandoned the lease and since that time he and his legal representatives have failed and refused to comply with any of the terms thereof. It is alleged that McRainey died on July 29, 1928, and that Mary L. McRainey was duly appointed administratrix of his estate on August 16, 1928; further, it is alleged that on February 11, 1927, Douglass conveyed the property to the plaintiff A. R. Douglass, Inc.

A plea interposed to the several counts of the amended declaration sets up that the defendant, as administratrix, published a notice to creditors of the estate as required by law, beginning on August 24, 1928, and that the plaintiff failed to file any claim in the office of the county judge of Orange county within one year succeeding the publication of the notice. This plea was held good, and final judgment was entered for the defendant on demurrer.

The principal question presented for determination is: Where a claim against an estate has not been sworn to and filed with the county judge within one year from the first publication of notice, does the fact that an action at law was brought in the circuit court on such claim before the expiration of such time of itself prevent the statute of nonclaim from being a bar to recovery?

Chapter 11994, Acts of 1927, governs this case inasmuch as same went into effect June 4, 1927, and the decedent died subsequent to that time. The title of the act shows that it is a revision of the law of notice and nonclaim relating to estates of decedents. Section 4 expressly repeals all laws or parts of laws in conflict with the same.

Section 2 of chapter 11994, Acts of 1927 (excepting the proviso), is as follows:

'No claim or demands shall be valid or binding upon an estate, or the executor or administrator thereof, unless the same shall be duly sworn to and presented to the county judge of the county granting letters testamentary or of administration on an estate, at his office in the court house of said county; and any claims or demands not so presented within twelve months from the time of the first publication of the notice provided for in Section 1 hereof shall be barred by limitations.' See section 5599, Compiled General Laws of Florida 1927.

In Tucker v. First National Bank of Lakeland, 98 Fla. 914 ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
237 cases
  • Calabro v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • September 18, 2008
    ...and determine the plain meaning of those words. Cf. Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 219 (Fla.1984) (citing A.R. Douglass, Inc. v. McRainey, 102 Fla. 1141, 137 So. 157, 159 (1931)). Assuming that the plain meaning of the words used can be determined, we are bound to apply that plain meaning to......
  • T.M.H. v. D.M.T., Case No. 5D09-3559
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 23, 2011
    ...of statutory interpretation and construction; the statute must be given its plain and obvious meaning.") (quoting A.R. Douglass, Inc. v. McRainey, 137 So. 157, 159 (1931)). In my view, the statute could not have been drafted any more clearly. That was the trial court's conclusion as well. H......
  • T.M.H. v. D.M.T., 5D09–3559.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • January 26, 2012
    ...interpretation and construction; the statute must be given its plain and obvious meaning.”) (quoting A.R. Douglass, Inc. v. McRainey, 102 Fla. 1141, 137 So. 157, 159 (1931)). In my view, the statute could not have been drafted any more clearly. That was the trial court's conclusion as well.......
  • Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 23, 2013
    ...must be given its plain and obvious meaning.” GTC, Inc. v. Edgar, 967 So.2d 781, 785 (Fla.2007) (quoting A.R. Douglass, Inc. v. McRainey, 102 Fla. 1141, 137 So. 157, 159 (1931)). By the plain language of section 440.15(2)(a), an injured worker who is still totally disabled at the end of his......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Judgment Collection: The Use of Proceedings Supplementary to Compel a Debtor to Pay a Judgment.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 97 No. 1, January 2023
    • January 1, 2023
    ...interpretation and construction; the statute must be given its plain and obvious meaning.") (quoting A.R. Douglass, Inc. v. McRainey, 102 Fla. 1141, 137 So. 157, 159 (56) Id. at 4 (quoting FLA. STAT. [section]56.29(6) (2021)). (57) Id. at 6 (emphasis added). (58) Id. (59) Id. (60) Id. at 6 ......
  • How lethal injection reform constitutes impermissible research on prisoners.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 45 No. 3, June 2008
    • June 22, 2008
    ...of Corrections Procedure no. 207.001(12)). (176.) Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d 217, 219 (Fla. 1984) (quoting A.R. Douglass, Inc. v. McRainey, 137 So. 157, 159 (Fla. (177.) FLA. ADMIN. CODE ANN. R. 4-4402. (178.) Knowles v. Beverly Enters.-Fla., Inc., 898 So. 2d 1, 8 (Fla. 2004). (179.) Id. (18......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT