Fowler v. Hartridge

• Decision Date: 27 November 1945
• Citation: 156 Fla. 585,24 So.2d 306
• Parties: FOWLER v. HARTRIDGE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

24 So.2d 306

156 Fla. 585

FOWLER v. HARTRIDGE.

Florida Supreme Court

November 27, 1945

Rehearing Denied Jan. 25, 1946.

Ragland, Kurz & Layton, of Jacksonville, for petitioner.

P. H Odom, George Couper Gibbs, and Lucien H. Boggs, all of Jacksonville, for respondent.

ADAMS, Justice.

This is an appeal from a decree of the chancellor rejecting the findings and recommendations of the special master in an equity suit. The master, Honorable Cecil C. Bailey, reported as follows:

'History of the Case:

'This litigation stems from a 99-year lease entered into in 1912 wherein Augustus G. Hartridge was the Lessor and John A Cunningham was the Lessee. The lease provides among other things that it should be binding upon the heirs, executors administrators, successors and assigns of the parties thereto.

'The said John A. Cunningham died in Duval County, Florida on August 30 1928, leaving a last will and testament under the terms of which his estate passed to his wife, Cornelia Ann Cunningham (now Fowler) and to his daughter, Inez John Cunningham. The said wife was named as Executrix of his will.

'The furniture business which was conducted by Mr. Cunningham in the leased premises, continued to occupy said premises. A corporation was organized in October of 1928 and the furniture business theretofore owned by John A. Cunningham was transferred to the corporation and the corporation thereafter occupied the premises and conducted a furniture business. Of the 2,000 shares of capital stock of this corporation, 997 shares were issued to Cornelia Ann Cunningham individually, 1000 were issued to her as Executrix and Trustee and three qualifying shares to nominal parties.

'The defendant, Augustus E. Hartridge, had actual knowledge of the death of John A. Cunningham within a short time after the death of the said John A. Cunningham. The said Augustus E. Hartridge had been accustomed to collecting his rent by drawing a draft upon John A. Cunningham through the Barnett National Bank of Jacksonville. The Bank would present the draft and receive a check for the amount thereof and credit the same to Mr. Hartridge's account. Notwithstanding Mr. Cunningham's death, this practice was continued until the year 1939.

'In May 1939, the rental payments were discontinued and shortly thereafter Mr. Hartridge filed a petition with the County Judge for leave to file a claim against the estate of John A. Cunningham. An amended petition was filed by Mr. Hartridge and after a hearing upon the amended petition and motion to strike the same, the County Judge ruled that the claim was barred by the statute of non-claim and granted a motion to strike the amended petition.

'An appeal was taken to the Circuit Court from this order and the Circuit Court held as the Special Master understands it, that the appellant, Mr. Hartridge, was entitled to have his amended petition and claim filed by the County Judge and considered and determined by the County Judge in Probate.

'After the case was remanded to the County Judge, the County Judge entered an order to the effect that he was without power to determine the facts alleged in Mr. Hartridge's petition or to adjudicate the claim beyond making the determination that the creditor be permitted to litigate his claim in such court as might have jurisdiction of the subject matter thereof. Thereupon the Executrix, Cornelia Ann Cunningham (Fowler) filed her suit in chancery in this Court seeking order of distribution of said estate and restraining and enjoining the defendant from the further prosecution of his claim. It seems to be conceded by the parties that this is a proper forum for the adjudication of Mr. Hartridge's claim. Upon the filing of a bill of complaint and an answer thereto in this court, the case was referred to the undersigned Special Master with directions to take testimony 'with regard to all issues raised by the pleadings, except those relating to the amount of damages * * *.'

'Issue Presented:

'As the Special Master understands it, the principal issue to be decided is whether or not under the circumstances of this case, the defendant, Hartridge, should be allowed to enforce his claim against the Estate of John A. Cunningham, notwithstanding the failure to file the claim with the Probate Court and notwithstanding the long delay in asserting such claim.

'The County Judge apparently reached the conclusion that the petition of the creditor did not show sufficient reason or excuse for failure to file the claim within the statutory period and that it was therefore barred by the statute of non-claim. Upon appeal the Circuit Court evidently reached the conclusion that the petition of the creditor if true, and if not overcome by countervailing facts and circumstances, did constitute sufficient excuse for failure to file the claim within the statutory period and reversed and remanded the case to the County Judge's Court.

'The Evidence:

'There is no serious dispute over the facts in this case. There are perhaps some minor conflicts and some of the proof may not be wholly satisfactory but certain matters appear to be well established.

'For example, there seems to be no serious dispute that John A. Cunningham was indebted during his lifetime to his wife, Cornelia Ann Cunningham, and that the amount of the indebtedness was substantial.

'The evidence does not disclose any action or conduct on the part of Cornelia Ann Fowler as Executrix that could be construed as a recognition of the claim of Mr. Hartridge nor as a waiver on her part of the filing of such claim. On the contrary, the conduct of Mr. Hartridge was such that the Executrix might reasonably have inferred that Mr. Hartridge would not assert his claim against the Estate of John A. Cunningham. There is not only the long delay of some eleven years but in addition Mr. Hartridge dealt with John A. Cunningham, Inc., the corporation which was organized to conduct the furniture business. He accepted rent from this corporation for a period shortly after Mr. Cunningham's death until about 1939. It is true that he did not see the corporation's checks used to pay this rent but this was because he elected to use the medium of the Barnett National Bank as a means of collecting his rent and it seems likely that the knowledge of the Bank would be imputed to the principal, Mr. Hartridge. Mr. Hartridge also negotiated with the officers of John A. Cunningham, Inc., when they were seeking a temporary reduction or abatement in the rent, which abatement he granted and the deferred rent was later in part paid to him in merchandise furnished by the corporation to Mr. Hartridge.

'At a still later date when John A. Cunningham, Inc., was seeking relief under Section 77B of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 207, Mr. Hartridge filed a claim against the corporation not only for past due items but for prospective damages as well.

'There is another circumstance that might be mentioned, namely, that the lease in question was assigned by the Executrix to John A. Cunningham, Inc., and the assignment recorded in the public records of Duval County, Florida in 1931. The proof does not show whether Mr. Hartridge had actual or merely constructive knowledge of this assignment.

'Conclusions:

'In view of the long delay on the part of Mr. Hartridge, in asserting his claim and in view of the dealings with the assignee of the lease as above enumerated, it seems to me that it may...