Adams v. Clark

• Decision Date: 20 December 1904
• Parties: ADAMS et al. v. CLARK et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

37 So. 734

48 Fla. 205

ADAMS et al. v. CLARK et al.

Florida Supreme Court

December 20, 1904

In Banc. Appeal from Circuit Court, Duval County; Rhydon M Call, Judge.

Bill by Aaron Adams and others against John E. Clark and others. Decree for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. John Clark and his wife, Amanda, established their home and permanent place of abode prior to the year 1855 on two contiguous lots of ground, not exceeding in the aggregate the half of one acre in area, located in the city of Jacksonville, and continuously resided there until the death of both of them. On this lot were born to them two children John E. Clark and Lizzie F. Clark, who resided there with them until both were married. John E. Clark, the son, married in the year 1876, and established a home for himself elsewhere. Lizzie F. Clark, the daughter, in the year 1887 married Clarence H. Ashmead, and, with the exception of a few months immediately succeeding her marriage, continuously resided, with her husband and two children, at the home of her parents, until her death there, in 1889. At the time of her death, Lizzie F. Ashmead had had two children, Clarence H. Ashmead, Jr., and Lizzie Clark Ashmead, both of whom were born at the home of their grand parents. Clarence H. Ashmead continued to reside with his wife's parents, with his two children, for about six months after his wife's death when he, with his son, Clarence H., Jr., removed to a home of his own elsewhere, the title to which was in him in trust for his said two children, leaving his daughter, Lizzie Clark Ashmead, with her said grandparents, with the understanding that they were to rear, educate, and support her so long as they lived; and she continued to live with her grandparents until both of them died, and resided at their home for several months after the death of her grandfather, who was her last surviving grandparent, when she was taken charge of by her father. This granddaughter was wholly supported by her grandfather from the date of her mother's death, when she was about one month of age--he paying all of the bills for her clothing, education, musical culture, playthings, etc and furnishing her board--and he was greatly attached to her. Clarence H. Ashmead, the father of these two children, was an able-bodied man, and received a salary in the employ of his father-in-law of $100 per month from a time shortly after his marriage until the death of said father-in-law, and had no other income except this salary, but contributed nothing towards the support, maintenance, or education of his daughter, Lizzie, from the time of her mother's death until after the death of her said grandfather. The grandmether of these two Ashmead children, Mrs. Amanda Clark, devised them by her will a half interest in some real estate in the city of Baltimore, and a piece of unimproved real estate in Florida, all of which yielded a small income, not exceeding $100 per year. There was no formal or legal adoption by John Clark or his wife of their granddaughter. Lizzie Clark Ashmead, but they assumed entire charge, control, and support of her from the date of her mother's death, when she was only one month old, with the entire approbation of her father, and with the understanding that they were to care for, educate, rear, and support her so long as they lived, and they did in fact do so. Amanda Clark died in February, 1898, and John Clark died in September, 1898. Under these circumstances, held, that Lizzie Clark Ashmead, the granddaughter, was a member of the family of John Clark at the time of his death, and that the said John Clark was at the time of his death the head of a family residing in this state, and as such was entitled, under the Constitution, to an exemption of the lots comprising his homestead from the payment of this debts.

2. A party, to be a member of a family, within the meaning of the homestead article of the Constitution, must be a member of such family in good faith.

COUNSEL

R. H. Liggett, Jno. W. Dodge, and Fleming & Fleming, for appellants.

E. J. L'Engle and Cooper & Cooper, for appellees.

OPINION The appellants, as complainants below, filed their bill in equity in the circuit court of Duval county against the appellees. The complainants were all creditors of John Clark, late of Duval county, deceased, and the main purpose of the bill was to subject to the payment of the claims of said creditors two lots in the city of Jacksonville, Duval county, Fla., that were owned by the said John Clark at the time of his death, and upon which he then resided; said two lots being contiguous to each other, and containing, in the aggregate, one-half acre of ground. The bill alleges and the answers admit that said two lots were owned in fee by the said John Clark at the time of his death and that at such time, and for many years before, the said John Clark made said lots his home and permanent place of abode, and that at his death he left as his heirs at law his son, the defendant, John E. Clark, and two grandchildren, the minor defendants, Clarence H. Ashmead, Jr., and Lizzie Clark Ashmead, children of the defendant Clarence H. Ashmead and a deceased daughter of the said John Clark; that the said John Clark died intestate, and that the said John E. Clark and Clarence H. Ashmead took out letters of administration on his estate; that, upon the theory that the said John Clark was at the time of his death the head of a family, and that said two lots constituted his homestead, and were exempt from liability for his debts, his said administrators refrained and refused to administer thereon as assets of the estate, but, on the contrary, treating it as the homestead of the said John Clark, and claiming that it descended to his heirs at law exempt from his debts, the said heirs at law sold and conveyed their respective rights and interests therein to the defendant Woods T. Wilson for the real use and benefit of the defendant the Atlantic, Valdosta & Western Railway Company, that had taken possession thereof and constructed thereon its railway tracks, etc., and that the aggregate consideration paid to said heirs for said lots was $13,000; that without said lots the said estate of John Clark, deceased, is insolvent, but that, by including them as assets of the estate, it would not be insolvent. The bill alleges that the said John Clark had, prior to his death, ceased to be the head of a family, and was not, therefore, entitled to the exemption of said lots as a homestead. The answers of the defendants, on the other hand, denied that he had ceased to be the head of a family, and was consequently entitled to the exemption of his homestead. Testimony was taken and submitted, and, at the final hearing upon the bill, answers, and evidence, the chancellor found the equities to be with the defendants, and dismissed the bill. From this decree the complainants below have appealed here, and assign the said decree as error.

TAYLOR, C.J. (after stating the facts).

Some questions have been raised on the argument here as to the propriety of the pleadings, but, deeming these unimportant, we will discuss the case solely upon its merits.

The facts as established by the proofs are substantially as follows: John Clark and his wife, Amanda Clark, some time prior to the year 1855 established their residence and permanent home upon the lots in question, and thereafter continuously resided there with their family until the death of Mrs. Amanda Clark, in February, 1898; and John Clark continued to reside there with one of his grandchildren and a niece of his until his death, in September, 1898. At this home there were born to them two children, the defendant John E. Clark and Lizzie F. Clark, who resided there...