In Re Alkire's Estate, in Re

Decision Date10 May 1940
Citation198 So. 475,144 Fla. 606
PartiesIn re ALKIRE'S ESTATE. v. SMITH et al. CALLISON et al.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Rehearing Denied June 28, 1940.

Supplemental Opinion En Banc Oct. 25, 1940.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 26, 1940.

Proceeding in the matter of the estate of Nicholas P. Alkire, deceased wherein Ellen Alkire Callison and others filed petition for the revocation of the probation of the alleged will of the deceased, which petition was opposed by Mattie J. Smith and others. Intervention by Emma Trammell and others was permitted. The county judge entered an order revoking the order which admitted the will to probate, and from a decree of the circuit court reversing the order of the county judge Ellen Alkire Callison and others appeal.

Affirmed.

BROWN and BUFORD, JJ., dissenting in part.

On Petition for Rehearing. Appeal from Circuit Court, Volusia County; H B. Frederick, judge.

COUNSEL

Millard B. Conklin, of Daytona Beach, and Keen & Allen, of Tallahassee, for appellants.

John R. Parkinson, of Daytona Beach, for appellees Mattie J. and DaCosta Smith.

W. M. Cobb, of Daytona Beach, for appellee First Atlantic Nat. Bank of Daytona Beach.

P. W. Harvey, of Daytona Beach, for appellee Emma Trammell.

CHAPMAN Justice.

The record in this case discloses that on September 8, 1936, there was filed in the County Judge's office of Volusia County, Florida, the last will and testament of Nicholas P. Alkire, with a petition for probate and for letters testamentary. An order was entered in the County Judge's Court admitting the said will to probate upon the affidavits of the attesting witnesses, viz.: Muriel O'Neill, Anna L. McKeever and William M. Cobb.

The material portions of the said last will and testament are, viz.:

'I, Nicholas P. Alkire, of Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida, being of sound and disposing mind and memory do make this my last Will and Testament, hereby revoking any and all former Wills and Codicils by me heretofore made.
'1. I direct the payment of my funeral expenses and all my just debts as promptly as possible after my decease.
'II. I give, devise and bequeath unto Mrs. Emma Trammell, of Daytona Beach, Florida, my property described as Lot Ten (10) Block eleven (11) Rogers Seabreeze, Daytona Beach, Florida, together with all furniture and furnishings therein contained absolutely and in fee simple, forever, and the sum of five hundred dollars ($500.00) in cash, if she shall be in my employ at the time of my decease.
'III. But, if the said Emma Trammell be not in my employ at the time of my decease, then the foregoing devise and bequest to her shall lapse and fall into and become a part of my residuary estate.
'IV. I give, devise and bequeath all of the rest, residue and remainder of my property, estate, and effects, both real and personal whatsoever and wheresoever situate, which I may now own and which I may hereafter acquire and have power to dispose of at the time of my decease, unto my niece, Mrs. Mattie J. Smith, wife of DeCosta Smith of Weston, State of West Virginia, her heirs and assigns, absolutely and in fee simple, forever.

'This is Page one (1) of my Last Will and Testament.

'(Signed) Nicholas P. Alkire (Seal)

'V. It is my desire that I shall be buried in the family lot in the Odd Fellows' Cemetery at Fairview Methodist Protestant Church at Hacker's Creek, West Virginia; and it is my further desire, and I so request that the said Mattie J. Smith will look after the upkeep of the said cemetery lot in a reasonable and decent manner, and I leave it to her honor so to do.

'VI. I hereby constitute and appoint the First Atlantic National Bank of Daytona Beach, Florida, as executor of this may last Will and Testament, and it is my suggestion and I so request, that my executor shall confer with William M. Cobb, Esquire, of Daytona Beach, Florida, my attorney, for assistance in probating this my Will, and inclosing my estate.

'In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this eighth day of March, A. D. 1935.'

On March 26, 1937, Ellen Alkire Callison, May Alkire Callison and Edwin Alkire filed a petition for the revocation of probation of the alleged will on the grounds; (a) that Nicholas P. Alkire was not of sound mind on March 8, 1935; (b) the said Nicholas P. Alkire did not have the necessary testamentary capacity to make a will; (c) Nicholas P. Alkire did not have the ability to mentally understand the extent and character of his property; (d) that Nicholas P. Alkire did not have the mental capacity to comprehend the nature of his obligations to others, the persons who had legal and natural claims upon him, who should be the subject of his bounty; (e) that Nicholas P. Alkire, on May 8, 1935, was about 76 years of age, had been in his dotage for five years and did not possess testamentary capacity.

The petition sets forth other reasons or grounds for the revocation of the will and a prayer for a citation to be issued and that the court receive testimony on the issues made. The said petitioners were the blood relations or lineal descendants of the testator. An order of intervention was permitted, and an answer was filed by the defendants claiming under the will, which denied the material allegations of the petition for revocation.

On the issues tendered by the pleadings, the respective parties adduced considerable testimony. The testimony as taken centered largely around the testamentary capacity of the testator and but little, if any, testimony was offered on the issue of undue influence. The will gave to Mrs. Emma Trammell, the housekeeper of the testator, the home and $500 in cash, and after the making of the will, the testator invested $10,000 in annuities with the New York Life Insurance Company and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, which he also gave to Mrs. Trammell.

After all the evidence had been received, Honorable J. E. Peacock, County Judge of Volusia County, made and entered an order dated June 30, 1938, revoking the order dated September 8, 1936, which admitted to probate the last will and testament of Nicholas P. Alkire.

From said order as made and entered by the County Judge of Volusia County, Florida, an appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of Volusia County and a number of errors assigned for the reversal thereof. The notice of the entry of appeal is dated July 29, 1938 and it is insisted that the appeal should have been heard within sixty days from July 15, 1938, but the Circuit Judge, on August 20, 1938, made and entered an order enlarging the time in which the said appeal should be heard to include October 13, 1938. On October 13, 1938, the Circuit Judge by an order enlarged the time for hearing the appeal to include the 14th day of November, 1938, because an important case was then being heard or tried and because of the condition of the docket, and the said appeal was set for a hearing at 9:30 A. M., November 14, 1938, and notice of said hearing was given by counsel. The appeal was heard by the Honorable H. P. Frederick, Circuit Judge, on November 14, 1938, and on June 22, 1939, a decree was made reversing the order entered by the County Judge of Volusia County on June 30, 1938. From the decree entered by the Circuit Court of Volusia County, Florida, dated June 22, 1939, an appeal has been perfected to this Court and a number of errors assigned for a reversal thereof.

It is contended that the appeals of Mattie J. Smith and Emma Trammell taken under Section 53 of Chapter 16103, Acts of 1933, Laws of Florida, from the order of the County Judge of Volusia County, Florida, dated June 30, 1938, to the Circuit Court of Volusia County should have been dismissed for reasons, viz.:

'1. Because the sixty-day period for hearing the appeal of Emma Trammell expired on September 13th, 1938, and the enlargement thereof by the Circuit Court, expired October 13th, 1938.

'2. Because the sixty day period for hearing the appeal of Mattie J. Smith and DaCosta Smith, her husband, expired September 27th, 1938, and the enlargement thereof by the Circuit Court expired October 13th, 1938.

'3. Because there was no order entered, filed and recorded in the office of the County Judge, nor in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, prior to September 13th, 1938, the end of the sixty-day appeal period for Emma Trammell, extending her appeal period beyond and after October 13th, 1938.

'4. Because the Circuit Court was without authority--'On its own motion'--to extend the time for hearing said appeals beyond and after October 13th, 1938, and 'to and including November 14th, 1938.'

'5. Because the said extended appeal period for hearing said two appeals,--'to and including said 14th day of November, A. D. 1938'--has expired.

'6. Because the Judge of the Circuit Court has not entered an order extending or enlarging the time for hearing said appeals beyond and after November 14, 1938.'

We fail to find merit in this contention. See Mitchell v. Mitchell, Fla., 190 So. 758. The reasons assigned in each of the orders enlarging the time in which the appeals could be heard were the condition of the docket of the Court, other important cases then being considered, and the intention of the statute is directory but not mandatory. While considerable time was consumed by the court after hearing the case in November, 1938, and the date of signing the final decree, it is reasonable to assume that the court had other pressing official duties to discharge and the record in the case is voluminous and time necessarily is required to thoroughly understand and master the facts and the law applicable to those facts.

It is next contended that from the decree of the Circuit Court dated June 22, 1939, the deducible inference is that ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • King v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • July 11, 1962
    ...Fla., 104 So.2d 524 and King v. State, Fla.App., 134 So.2d 502. This court has jurisdiction to review the matter; compare Alkire's Estate, 144 Fla. 606, 198 So. 475; Way v. State, Fla., 67 So.2d 321; Diecidue v. State, Fla., 131 So.2d 7; and Trafficante v. State, Fla., 92 So.2d 811. A caref......
  • Bain v. State, 97-02007
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 29, 1999
    ...As such, the correction of fundamental error is not merely a judicial power; it is an unrenunciable judicial duty. See In re Alkire's Estate, 142 Fla. 862, 144 Fla. 606, 198 So. 475, 482 (1940) (holding that judicial power vested by constitution cannot be abdicated in whole or part by the c......
  • Rich v. Ryals, 36838
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • July 2, 1968
    ...of Orange County of their constitutional right to judicial process.' Citing Simmons v. State, 160 Fla. 626, 36 So.2d 207; In re Alkire's Estate, 142 Fla. 862, 144 Fla. 606, 198 So. 475; and Hay v. Isetts, 98 Fla. 1026, 125 So. A casual examination of the Orange County Zoning Law will show t......
  • Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Associated Industries of Florida, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • June 27, 1996
    ...this portion of the statute also invades the province of the courts to establish practice and procedure. See In re Alkire's Estate, 144 Fla. 606, 623-25, 198 So. 475, 482-83 (1940) ("The weight to be given to evidence in judicial proceedings is not a matter for legislative regulation.... St......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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