Johnson v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 05 November 1946 |
| Citation | 158 Fla. 315,28 So.2d 438 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | JOHNSON et al. v. JOHNSON et al. |
On Rehearing Nov. 30, 1946.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pinellas County; John U Bird, judge.
Joseph W Nichols, of Clearwater, and Archie Clement, of Tarpan Springs, for appellants.
Lee L Baker and Ray E. Ulmer, and Baker & Ulmer, all of Clearwater, for Blanche Johnson, appellee.
M. H Jones, of Clearwater, for administrator c.t.a., appellee.
W. S. Wightman, of Clearwater, for guardian ad litem for Lynwood P. Johnson and Ann G. Johnson, appellees.
On December 18, 1944, the will of William M. Johnson was probated and on January 11, 1945, Barbara Joyce Johnson and William M. Johnson, Jr., daughter and son by the deceased's first marriage, petitioned the court to revoke the probate of the will upon the grounds (1) that at the time of the execution of the will William M. Johnson was not of testamentary capacity and (2) that the execution of the will was the result of undue influence.
Section 732.30, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A., prescribes:
'* * * The petition shall set forth * * * the facts constituting the grounds upon which revocation is demanded.'
For the purposes of the hearing on the motion to revoke upon the grounds stated the execution of the will might properly have been assumed.
At the hearing on the petition for revocation evidence was introduced by the proponents of the will to establish that the signature to the will was that of William M. Johnson and no evidence was introduced by the movants.
The motion to vacate and set aside the probate of the will was denied and upon appeal to the circuit court the county judge was affirmed and movants now have appealed to this court.
Contestants have failed to introduce any evidence to support the grounds stated in their motion and argue that the proof of the execution of the will is insufficient to authorize probate. It is our conclusion that the judgment should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
On Rehearing.
Petition for rehearing suggests that we have overlooked Sec. 732.31, Fla.Stat.1941 F.S.A., which provides that upon proceedings contesting a purported will that the proponents shall have the burden of proof, in the first instance, to establish the formal execution and attestation of the will, whereupon the burden shifts to the contestants to establish their stated grounds for revocation of probate.
Upon further consideration we find we were in error in affirming the appeal in that no evidence of any kind was introduced by the proponents to establish attestation. This is one of the statutory requirements whether the contest is before or after the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. State ex rel. Johnson
...in prohibition wherein a peremptory writ was issued. The first appearance of the subject matter of this case was in Johnson v. Johnson, 158 Fla. 315, 28 So.2d 438. The appearance was a mandamus proceeding in the circuit court, seeking to have the court direct the manner in which the county ......
-
State ex rel. Johnson v. White
...Justice. This case in some form or other has been to the Supreme Court three times. The decisions are reported in, Johnson v. Johnson, 158 Fla. 315, 28 So.2d 438; State ex rel. Johnson v. White, 160 Fla. 782, 36 So.2d 224, and White v. State ex rel. Johnson, 160 Fla. 965, 37 So.2d 580. No u......
-
Hill's Estate, In re, 989
... ... (See Chapman v. Campbell, 114 So.2d 430, decided by this court on September 16, 1959). An inspection of the record in the case of Johnson ... v. Johnson, 1946, 158 Fla. 315, 28 So.2d 438, relied on by the appellants, divulges that that case was completed, and it was upon that status ... ...