Fla. Nat'l. Bank of Jacksonville v. Gardner

Supreme Court of Florida

Fla. Nat'l. Bank of Jacksonville v. Gardner

19 So. 2d 5, 154 Fla. 801, 1944 Fla. LEXIS 820

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedAugust 1, 1944

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 So. 2d 5 (Fla. Nat'l. Bank of Jacksonville v. Gardner) 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

Fla. Nat'l. Bank of Jacksonville v. Gardner, 19 So. 2d 5, 154 Fla. 801, 1944 Fla. LEXIS 820 (Fla. 1944).

Pincite

Opinions

Two members of the Court, Mr. Justice BROWN and Mr. Justice ADAMS, hold the view that the decree should be affirmed because the admiinstrator could not set off against a distributee's share of the estate the amount of a note, against which the statute of limitations had run, given by the distributee to the intestate. Honorable E. C. Welch, Circuit Judge, sitting in place of Mr. Justice SEBRING, believes the decree should be affirmed, regardless of that phase of the litigation, because of Section 734.27, Florida Statutes, 1941, and F.S.A. Chief Justice BUFORD, Justices TERRELL, CHAPMAN and THOMAS are of the opinion that the decree should be reversed because neither statute applies.

Therefore, a majority having agreed to a reversal of the decree appealed from, the same is hereby reversed without opinion.

It is so ordered.

BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL, CHAPMAN, ADAMS and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

BROWN, J., and WELCH, Circuit Judge, dissent.

SEBRING, J., disqualified. *Page 802

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

Two members of the Court, Mr. Justice BROWN and Mr. Justice ADAMS, hold the view that the decree should be affirmed because the admiinstrator could not set off against a distributee's share of the estate the amount of a note, against which the statute of limitations had run, given by the distributee to the intestate. Honorable E. C. Welch, Circuit Judge, sitting in place of Mr. Justice SEBRING, believes the decree should be affirmed, regardless of that phase of the litigation, because of Section 734.27, Florida Statutes, 1941, and F.S.A. Chief Justice BUFORD, Justices TERRELL, CHAPMAN and THOMAS are of the opinion that the decree should be reversed because neither statute applies.