Judges: CHAPMAN, J.:
Attorneys: James H. Finch, Harry H. Wells, Tage Johnson (Chicago, Ill.) Harry Hamill (Chicago, Ill.) and Edward Schatz, (Chicago, Ill.), for appellants.
McKay, Macfarlane, Jackson Ferguson, for Royal Indemnity Company and Globe Indemnity Company, Raney, Raney Anderson for Maryland Casualty Company, J.W. Davis for Lottie K. Benjamin, as Executrix, etc., and as Administratrix, etc., J.W. Davis, as Administrator, etc., Carey and Harrison for Ellis R. Stetson and Martha A. Stetson, his wife, appellees.
Filed: Apr. 17, 1942
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: The record here discloses that Harrison J. Stewart and wife, Ada Cone Stewart, were an aged and childless couple residing in Pinellas County, Florida, and were killed in an automobile collision with a train on the 28th day of January, 1931. The husband died about one hour prior to the wife and each left a will wherein the other was made the sole beneficiary. The two wills were admitted to probate in Pinellas County, Florida. On February 11, 1931, letters testamentary were issued by the County Ju
Summary: The record here discloses that Harrison J. Stewart and wife, Ada Cone Stewart, were an aged and childless couple residing in Pinellas County, Florida, and were killed in an automobile collision with a train on the 28th day of January, 1931. The husband died about one hour prior to the wife and each left a will wherein the other was made the sole beneficiary. The two wills were admitted to probate in Pinellas County, Florida. On February 11, 1931, letters testamentary were issued by the County Jud..
More
On petition for rehearing it is suggested that the lower court omitted and failed to give proper consideration to the appellants' application for the appointment of a receiver with the power and authority to collect the rents, insure the buildings against loss and destruction by fire, make reasonable repairs, pay the taxes, and otherwise conserve and protect the property involved in this litigation until an order of discharge shall or may be entered in the premises.
We have re-examined the record in the light of the contention made by counsel for the appellants, and have concluded that the chancellor below should have granted the application and appointed a suitable and competent person to act as receiver of the property here involved.
The previous order of this Court denying the application for an interlocutory writ of certiorari and
affirming the order of the lower court is hereby modified, with directions to the lower court to enter an order appointing a receiver of the property pending this litigation.
It is so ordered.
BROWN, C. J., WHITFIELD, TERRELL, and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
THOMAS, J., adheres to original opinion by CHAPMAN, J.
