Gulf Refining Co. v. Ankeny, (1931)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 16
Judges: WHITFIELD, P.J. —
Attorneys: Knight, Pace Holt, A. C. Dressler and Dame Rogers, for Plaintiff in Error;
Fee Liddon, for Defendant in Error.
Filed: Jun. 24, 1931
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: In an action of ejectment brought by the children of a deceased homestead owner, the defense was not that the portion of the homestead real estate in controversy had been alienated by deed duly executed by the homestead owner and his wife, but that such homestead real estate had been abandoned as a part of the homestead by the deceased owner who had shortly before his death contracted for its sale and had delivered possession of it with the consent of his wife who, pursuant to the contract of sa
Summary: In an action of ejectment brought by the children of a deceased homestead owner, the defense was not that the portion of the homestead real estate in controversy had been alienated by deed duly executed by the homestead owner and his wife, but that such homestead real estate had been abandoned as a part of the homestead by the deceased owner who had shortly before his death contracted for its sale and had delivered possession of it with the consent of his wife who, pursuant to the contract of sal..
More
I think that there is no proof of abandonment of the homestead or any part thereof that would be binding upon the minor children of the homestead owner. If the agreement to sell had embraced the entire homestead and all other things had been one as they were done there would have been no abandonment of the homestead. It appears to me that acts, which if applied to the entire homestead would not work an abandonment of the entire homestead, are insufficient to constitute abandonment, when applied to only a part of the homestead.
Source: CourtListener
