State Ex Rel. Willys v. Chillingworth

Citation124 Fla. 274,168 So. 249
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Decision Date14 May 1936
PartiesSTATE ex rel. WILLYS v. CHILLINGWORTH, Judge, et al.

Original proceeding for prohibition by the State, on the relation of Florence K. Willys, widow of John N. Willys, deceased against C. E. Chillingworth, as Judge, and George C. Butler as Clerk of the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Palm Beach County.

Writ of prohibition granted.

COUNSEL

Bryant & Pittman, of Miami, for petitioner.

Loftin Stokes & Calkins, of Miami, for respondents.

OPINION

TERRELL Justice.

Virginia Willys De Landa, joined by her husband, Jose De Landa, filed her bill of complaint in the circuit court of Palm Beach county in which she alleges that she is the only daughter and sole heir at law of John N. Willys, who died August 26, 1935, and that Florence E. Dolan Willys claims to be the lawful widow of said John N. Willys and that she is entitled to the rights and interests as such in his estate.

The bill of complaint further alleges that John N. Willys left a valuable estate believed to be worth several millions of dollars, a considerable part of which is in real and personal property located in Palm Beach county; that Florence E. Dolan Willys was not the lawful wife of John N. Willys, and is not his lawful widow; that she was the lawful wife of Harold J. Dolan when she entered into a putative marriage with John N. Willys July 30, 1934, at Miami, Fla.; that she attempted to secure a divorce from Harold J. Dolan in Dade county, Fla., October 25, 1934, on a bill of complaint filed the day previous, but that said divorce was fraudulently obtained, and consequently did not dissolve the bonds of matrimony between the parties thereto.

The bill also alleged that a written document purporting to be the last will of John N. Willys was filed for probate in the county judge's court of Palm Beach county on August 30, 1935, under which the major portion of his estate was left to Florence E. Dolan Willys but a small part was left to Virginia Willys De Landa, who filed objections to the probate of the alleged will. The application to probate the said will is still pending. The bill prays that Florence E. Dolan Willys be decreed to have no right or interest in the estate of John N. Willys as his widow because her marriage to him was void.

The instant proceeding in prohibition was instituted in this court by filing a suggestion for writ of prohibition on the part of Florence E. Dolan Willys directed to the judge and clerk of the circuit court of Palm Beach county challenging the jurisdiction of the former to adjudicate the questions raised in the bill of complaint filed by Virginia Willys De Landa, because: (1) As sole heir at law and daughter of John N. Willys she is not entitled to have judicially ascertained and fixed the relative rights of herself and the alleged widow in the estate of John N. Willys. (2) Notwithstanding the fact that a substantial part of the estate is located in Palm Beach county and Mr. Willys' alleged will has been filed for probate in that county and both Mrs. De Landa and Mrs. Willys are nonresidents of the state, the circuit court of that county may not entertain the bill of complaint filed by Mrs. De Landa. (3) Only the circuit court of Dade county, where the decree of divorce in Dolan v. Dolan was granted and where the marriage of John N. Willys and Florence E. Dolan Willys is alleged to have occurred has jurisdiction of a bill of complaint questioning the validity of the divorce decree and the marriage brought in question, although both are alleged to be void.

A rule nisi was issued, and respondents demurred to the suggestion for writ of prohibition. Said demurrer raised the following questions: (1) Can Virginia Willys De Landa, as daughter and sole heir at law of John N. Willys, maintain the bill of complaint, one purpose of which is to invalidate her father's marriage? (2) Can she maintain it in Palm Beach county where the property in litigation is? And (3) since the bill of complaint was brought primarily to determine the relative rights of Virginia Willys De Landa and Florence E. Dolan Willys in the estate of John N. Willys in Palm Beach county, is the jurisdiction of the circuit court of that county ousted by reason of the fact that said rights are determined by the validity of a divorce decree granted in Dade county and a marriage consummated in the said county between John N. Willys and Florence E. Dolan Willys, who was one of the parties to the divorce decree, both which marriage and divorce are brought in question and are alleged to be void?

Petitioner moves to strike respondents' demurrer and for judgment of prohibition absolute. This motion raises the primary question we are called on to answer, viz., Should the circuit court of Palm Beach county be prohibited from exercising jurisdiction of the suit to determine the rights of Virginia Willys De Landa and Florence E. Dolan Willys in the estate of John N. Willys?

Respondents contend that this question should be answered in the negative because the real issue in the suit is one involving property rights in litigation located in Palm Beach county; that respondent has a right to question the validity of the marriage of petitioner to John N. Willys; that the will of John N. Willys was filed for probate in Palm Beach county; and that the divorce decree in Dolan v. Dolan is only incidentally brought in question. To support this contention relies on Rawlins v. Rawlins, 18 Fla. 345; Shrader v. Shrader, 36 Fla. 502, 18 So. 672; Kuehmsted v. Turnwall, 103 Fla. 1180, 138 So. 775; Bender v. Damon, 72 Tex. 92, 9 S.W. 747; Arnold v. Hawley, 67 Iowa, 313, 25 N.W. 259; Busenbark v. Busenbark, 33 Kan. 572, 7 P. 245, and others.

These cases support the general proposition that an independent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Old Colony Trust Co. v. Porter
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • September 16, 1949
    ...368, 181 P. 648;Brill v. Brill, 38 Cal.App.2d 741, 102 P.2d 534;Ainscow v. Alexander, Del.Super., 39 A.2d 54;State ex rel. Willys v. Chillingworth, 124 Fla. 274, 168 So. 249;Richardson v. King, 157 Iowa 287, 135 N.W. 640;Tomlinson v. Tomlinson, 121 Kan. 206, 246 P. 980;Ewald v. Ewald, 167 M......
  • In re Hanson's Estate
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • October 25, 1962
    ...their excellent briefs. After a careful review of the reported Florida decisions, including the leading cases of State ex rel. Willys v. Chillingworth, 124 Fla. 274, 168 So. 249, Beckwith v. Bailey, 119 Fla. 316, 161 So. 576, and de Marigny v. de Marigny, Fla., 43 So.2d 442, the Court is co......
  • Treece v. Treece
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • July 24, 1962
    ...238; In re Torkkila's Estate, 198 Misc. 265, 98 N.Y.S.2d 460; Ex parte Nimmer, 212 S.C. 311, 47 S.E.2d 716; State ex rel. Willys v. Chillingworth, 124 Fla. 274, 168 So. 249; Jones v. Goolsby, 218 Miss. 847, 68 So.2d 89. See also: Anno. 12 A.L.R.2d 717. Washington split five to four against ......
  • Old Colony Trust Co. v. Porter
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • September 16, 1949
    ...... his wife were married and lived as husband and wife in the. State of New York; that Gertrude E. Porter has continued to. reside there; that ... v. Alexander (Del. Supr.), 39 A. (2d) 54. State v. Chillingworth, 124 Fla. 274. Richardson v. King, 157 Iowa,. 287. Tomlinson v. ......
  • 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