Henderson v. Ewell

• Decision Date: 07 July 1933
• Citation: 149 So. 372,111 Fla. 324
• Parties: HENDERSON v. EWELL et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

149 So. 372

111 Fla. 324

HENDERSON v. EWELL et al.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

July 7, 1933

Proceeding by Annie P. Ewell and others to remove Lois Ewell Henderson and others as coadministrators of the estate of James L Ewell, deceased. Order removing the coadministrators, and the named administrator appeals.

Affirmed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Pinellas County; T F. Hobson, judge.

COUNSEL

Raine Ewell, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

W. F Way, of St. Petersburg, and Paull E. Dixon, of Tampa, for appellees.

OPINION

DAVIS Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of Pinellas county removing as coadministrators of the estate of James L Ewell, deceased, Lois Ewell Henderson, James G. Ewell, and Hunter N. Ewell.

The chancellor heard all the witnesses personally, and expressly found in his decree that the evidence showed that the joint administrators were in irreconcilable conflict with each other regarding the management of the estate; that each administrator had been taking individual action without consulting his or her coadministrator, and that a spirit of intense antagonism existed between the joint administrators; that such conflict and dissension had been of long standing, and had existed from the beginning; that all of this militated against the proper and profitable handling of the estate. The court further found that said administrators had failed to make reports of their acts and doings as required by the statutes pertaining to administrators, and that it would be for the best interest of said estate that the joint administrators be removed and that a competent person be appointed in their stead. One W. R. Burt was accordingly so appointed as administrator cum testamento annexo of the estate. The appeal is by Lois Ewell Henderson, one of the removed administrators.

An appellate court is always disinclined to interfere with action taken by a court of first instance in the matter of removal of executors or administrators in cases where the court below has affirmatively found that the existing administrators or executors have not faithfully performed their duties as such according to law, and has further found that, owing to other conditions made to appear to the court it will be for the best interest of the estate to remove executors or administrators and appoint a competent person to act in their stead. Nor will an appellate court reverse...