Inman v. Davis, (1936)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 9
Judges: BUFORD, J.
Attorneys: George P. Garrett and Latimer A. Long, for Plaintiffs in Error;
Holland, Bevis Hughes, for Defendant in Error.
Filed: Sep. 21, 1936
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: The writ of error brings for review judgment in favor of defendant in a suit against the Executrix of the Last Will and Testament of a person deceased. The suit was on a promissory note not under seal dated July 1, 1924, due July 1, 1929. The payee of the note died on May 13, 1929. The maker of the note died on November 28, 1931. Letters testamentary were issued to the Executrix of the maker on December 12, 1931. So it is that the action was brought within five years after the due date of the no
Summary: The writ of error brings for review judgment in favor of defendant in a suit against the Executrix of the Last Will and Testament of a person deceased. The suit was on a promissory note not under seal dated July 1, 1924, due July 1, 1929. The payee of the note died on May 13, 1929. The maker of the note died on November 28, 1931. Letters testamentary were issued to the Executrix of the maker on December 12, 1931. So it is that the action was brought within five years after the due date of the not..
More
The decedent involved in this case died prior to October 1, 1933, so the 1933 Probate Act (Chapter _______) is not applicable, I find nothing in the 1892 Revision of phraseology of Section 4648 C.G.L. 2928 R.G.S., to support the defendant in error's contention that a sweeping and revolutionary reversal of the meaning of the original statute, as it had been construed by the Court in Semmis v. Wightman, 31 Fla. 10, 12 Sou. Rep. 536, was contemplated by the Legislature, since repeals and amendments by implication are not favored. Therefore, I think the judgment was erroneous and should be reversed. The statute itself as it appears in the books bears the caption "Extensions in Time of Limitations" and I think such is still the expressed statutory intent when read in the light of the caption by which the Legislature itself has described its enactment.
Source: CourtListener
