Mcneill v. Harlow
| Decision Date | 25 March 1921 |
| Citation | 88 So. 127,81 Fla. 401 |
| Parties | McNEILL, State's Atty. v. HARLOW. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied April 21, 1921.
Petition by Sarah J. Harlow, by her next friend, Robert J. Goff, for restoration to a status of sanity and personal liberty. From a decree awarding the relief prayed, A. D. McNeill State's Attorney for the Fourth Judicial Circuit appeals.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Decree restoring petitioner, adjudged incompetent in another state to status of sanity, held valid. Where a person, who has in another state been adjudged to be 'not possessed of sufficient capacity to take care of herself and property,' afterwards removes to this state, an adjudication by a chancery court in this state, having the parties before it, that such person 'is of sound mind and capable of managing her own affairs,' and that she be 'restored to her personal liberty,' and that she 'is entitled to all the property rights granted by the Constitution and laws of the state of Florida,' is not invalid.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Duval County; Daniel A. Simmons, judge.
W. H. Baker and Fred Botts, both of Jacksonville, for appellant.
Herbert L. Anderson and Charles A. Powers, both of Jacksonville, for appellee.
It appears that Sarah J. Harlow was in the state of Ohio adjudged to be 'not possessed of sufficient capacity to take proper care of herself and property,' and a guardian of her person and estate was appointed by the Ohio court. Subsequently the ward removed to Florida, and upon full hearing on a petition in her behalf, the circuit court for Duval county, Fla., in proceedings under the statute for the restoration to a status of sanity of persons who had been adjudged insane, adjudged:
'That the said Sarah J. Harlow is of sound mind judicially and is capable of managing her own affairs; that the said Sarah J. Harlow be immediately restored to her personal liberty; that the said Sarah J. Harlow is entitled to all the property rights granted by the Constitution and laws of the state of Florida.'
On appeal it is contended that the Florida court had no jurisdiction, because, it is argued, if the Ohio decree is without force in Florida, the ward in this state has the status of a competent, and, if the Ohio decree was in force in Florida, the decree of the Florida court was a vain attempt to vacate the Ohio decree, which is entitled to full...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phillips' Estate, In re
...92 Ariz. 39, 43, 373 P.2d 353, 356); Florida (Matthews v. Matthews, 141 So.2d 799, 801--802, 96 A.L.R.2d 1231; see also McNeill v. Harlow, 81 Fla. 401, 88 So. 127); Indiana (Hayward v. Hayward, 65 Ind.App. 440, 450, 115 N.E. 966, 969, 116 N.E. 746); Massachusetts (Talbot v. Chamberlain, 149......
-
Delehanty v. Kahn
...states, as warranted by changes in the mental condition of the person in question. In re Kroll's Estate, supra and McNeill v. Harlow, (1921) 81 Fla. 401, 88 So. 127. In Wagner v. Commonwealth, (1964) Ky., 379 S.W.2d 731, which involved an appellate review of a circuit court proceeding under......
-
Mulholland v. Pittsburgh Nat. Bank
...444 and cases therein cited.12 Under these circumstances, Lusson Petition, 18 Pa.Dist. & Co.R.2d 794, is inapposite. Cf: McNeill v. Harlow, 81 Fla. 401, 88 So. 127.13 In Mulholland, supra, we said (405 Pa. p. 273, 174 A.2d p. 864): 'Even though the Pennsylvania court had jurisdiction over [......
-
Mulholland v. Pittsburgh Nat. Bank
...444 and cases therein cited. [12] Under these circumstances, Lusson Petition, 18 Pa.Dist. & Co.R.2d 794, is inapposite. Cf: McNeill v. Harlow, 81 Fla. 401, 88 So. 127. [13] In Mulholland, supra, we said (405 p. 273, 174 A.2d p. 864): 'Even though the Pennsylvania court had jurisdiction over......