Briles v. Bradford

• Decision Date: 29 October 1907
• Citation: 54 Fla. 501,44 So. 937
• Parties: BRILES v. BRADFORD.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

44 So. 937

54 Fla. 501

BRILES v. BRADFORD.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

October 29, 1907

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sumter County; William S. Bullock, Judge.

Bill by Lee A. Briles against Minnie E. Bradford. Decree for defendant, and complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Where a bill is filed by the purchaser from the heirs of the real estate of a decedent, attacking an allotment to the widow of dower in said real estate, on the grounds that the statutory notice of the application for allotment was not given, and that the allotment was so defectively made as to be void, and when testimony has been taken on these issues and findings made in which the real meaning of the report of the commissioners is determined and a decree entered against the contention of the complainant, and when this court cannot discover that the circuit judge erred in his construction of the report of the commissioners, and the other evidence, his decree will not be disturbed.

A court of chancery can only grant a complainant relief consistent with the allegations and prayers of his bill.

Section 1950 of the General Statutes of 1906, which was intended to enlarge the jurisdiction of the courts of chancery in quieting the title to real estate, if the section be otherwise constitutional, cannot be construed so as to impair the constitutional right of trial by jury.

COUNSEL Glen & Himes, for appellant.

OPINION

HOCKER J.

On the 1st of September, 1905, Lee A. Briles, the appellant hereinafter called the complainant, filed his bill in chancery in the circuit court of Sumter county against Minnie E. Bradford, the appellee, hereinafter called the defendant, wherein he alleged, in substance, that one J J. Bradford died intestate in Sumter county in September 1903, in which county he at his death resided, leaving several heirs who were of age, and a widow, the defendant that at the time of his death Bradford was seised and possessed of certain real estate situated in Sumter county, and certain personal property; that about March 23, 1904, letters of administration of Bradford's estate were granted the defendant, and that at the time of his death Bradford was not indebted; that on May 29, 1905, the complainant for value received purchased from the heirs of Bradford all the real estate of Bradford, and took a conveyance of same subject to the right of dower of defendant, and also all the personal property of Bradford; that defendant has never filed in the county judge's office any account of her administration, and that complainant is entitled to have dower allotted and set off to the defendant, and to have the defendant render an accounting as administrator; that on the 10th of December, 1904, the defendant filed her petition with the county judge of Sumter county praying for dower, and that on said day the county judge issued a writ to the sheriff for the allotment of dower to defendant; that on January 10, 1905, a pretended allotment of dower was filed in the county judge's court, and a pretended order by the said judge was made on the same day, confirming in part said allotment of dower; that copies of said petition, of the writ, of the report, and of the order, and of the only notice given before said allotment are attached to the bill as exhibits, marked 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' 'D,' and 'E,' respectively; that said proceedings are wholly null and void as will appear by said copies prayed to be taken as part of the bill; that the notice was not published once each week for four weeks as required by law of said application, nor was personal service made on the heirs, or any of them; that the proceedings on their face show they were void; that the report as filed is incorrect and at variance with the allotment made by the commissioners; that the allotment as, in fact, made only allowed defendant a life estate in lots 6, 7, 8, and 17, block 53, of the town of St. Catherine, which is another name for the town of Massacre; that said commissioners were not learned in the law, nor advised by counsel, and signed the report under a misapprehension, and by mistake.

The report of the sheriff shows that the commissioners allotted 'block 53, lots 6, 7, 8, and 17, in the town of St. Catherine, in Sumter county, and all improvements on the same, together with the dwelling house of the late James J. Bradford, and all buildings and outhouses belonging to the estate of the late James J. Bradford, deceased, together with whatever right, title, and interest the said James J. Bradford, deceased, may have had in and to the lands wherever the said dwelling house is located.' The report also shows the allotment of personal property.

The report of the five commissioners shows that they granted and set aside to Minnie E. Bradford 'all the buildings belonging to the said estate and the following real estate, to wit: Block 53, lots 6, 7, 8, and 17, in the town of St. Catherine, Sumter county, Florida.'

The bill alleges that the said allotment constitutes a cloud upon the title of your orator to the real estate, and that the same should be canceled and set aside, or the said report opened, vacated, or corrected. The bill further alleges that on the 17th of July, 1905, the defendant instituted in the county judge's court an action of unlawful detainer for the recovery of the possession of a certain building in block 53, in the town of Massacre, which was not embraced in the dower set apart to defendant, though through the mistake of the commissioners the report and confirmation are so worded as to embrace the same; that the building thus sued for is situated on lots 18 and 19 of block 53. The bill then alleges that this suit will only harass and annoy the defendant and cause him expense, and cause a multiplicity of suits, and that the matters involved should be determined in this suit; that the building sued for is not the dwelling house of Bradford in which he had been accustomed most generally to dwell next before his death; that the defendant is now occupying the said dwelling house. The bill prays, among other things, that dower may be awarded the defendant in accordance with law; that the defendant be required to make a settlement of her administration of said estate; that the allotment of dower heretofore made be annulled and canceled as a cloud upon the title of complainant; that the report of the commissioners and decree of the county judge's court may be reviewed and corrected in accordance with the findings of the commissioners and the facts alleged; and that an injunction pendente lite be issued restraining the defendant from prosecuting her action of unlawful detainer against complainant, and on final hearing that it be made perpetual, and for general relief.

On October 2, 1905, a temporary injunction was ordered and issued. There was no demurrer to the bill.

An answer was filed admitting the death of J. J. Bradford, Sr. that his last residence was in Sumter county, that he left surviving him as his heirs the children named in the bill, and that he was seised of the real estate described in the bill at the time of his death; that she is the widow of Bradford, but neither admits nor denies the allegation that complainant for valuable consideration was the purchaser of the real estate and personal property of J. J. Bradford, Sr., as alleged, and prays strict proof thereof; admits she was appointed administratrix; denies that decedent was not indebted; denies she has failed to file an inventory; neither admits nor denies that complainant became the purchaser of the real estate and personal property of Bradford and prays strict proof thereof; admits the dower proceedings...