Estate of Shambow v. Shambow

15 So. 2d 837, 153 Fla. 762, 1943 Fla. LEXIS 765
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedDecember 7, 1943
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 15 So. 2d 837 (Estate of Shambow v. Shambow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Estate of Shambow v. Shambow, 15 So. 2d 837, 153 Fla. 762, 1943 Fla. LEXIS 765 (Fla. 1943).

Opinion

ADAMS, J. :

This is a companion case to Shambow v. Shambow this day filed. A full statement of this case appears in our opinion filed on a former appeal. Shambow v. Shambow, 149 Fla. 278, 5 So. (2nd) 454. When the mandate went down the county judge proceeded to take additional testimony agreeable to our opinion. Subsequently appellants filed a petition to charge appellee with rent and other charges and thereafter demanded a jury trial on appellee’s claim which demand was disallowed. The county judge allowed the claim of appellee’s in the sum of $5488.14 and ordered the same paid and denied the petition of appellants, to charge appellee with rent and other charges. Upon the failure of the circuit court to disturb such rulings the judgment of the circuit court is appealed here.

Taking up for consideration this case where we left off on its former appearance here, the question arises whether the *763 appellee has proven his claim. We have considered the evidence and find it ample to sustain the judgment.

It is urged that it was erroneous to allow the claim for services rendered previous to within three years of the mother’s death. Such is not the law because the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the debt is due and in this case no money was due until after the mother’s death.

It is claimed that appellants had a constitutional right to a jury trial in a court of competent jurisdiction. It is fundamental that constitutional rights which are personal may be waived. Waiver may be expresed or implied. We do not decide the question, however, because the history of this litigation, as revealed by the records on appeals here, shows most clearly that appellants waived whatever rights they may have had.

The judgment is affirmed.

BUFORD, C. J., THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jody Meyer v. U-Haul Co of Florida, and Cindy Pronto
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2024
Alvin Davis v. State of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida, 2021
Martha Miles v. City of Edgewater Police Department
190 So. 3d 171 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Manatee County v. 1187 Upper James of Florida, LLC
104 So. 3d 1118 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Chames v. DeMayo
972 So. 2d 850 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2007)
Amend. to Regulating Fla. Bar Rule 4-1.5
939 So. 2d 1032 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2006)
Sarasota County v. Taylor Woodrow Homes
652 So. 2d 1247 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Woolf v. Reed
389 So. 2d 1026 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Ago
Florida Attorney General Reports, 1978
Weatherford v. Allstate Insurance
26 Fla. Supp. 97 (Hillsborough County Circuit Court, 1965)
Buenger v. Kennedy
151 So. 2d 463 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1963)
Schenkel v. Atlantic National Bank of Jacksonville
141 So. 2d 327 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)
Pollack v. Pollock
110 So. 2d 474 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1959)
Briggs v. Fitzpatrick
79 So. 2d 848 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 So. 2d 837, 153 Fla. 762, 1943 Fla. LEXIS 765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-shambow-v-shambow-fla-1943.