Kramer v. Smith

Supreme Court of Florida

Kramer v. Smith

128 So. 477, 99 Fla. 1147

DecidedMay 17, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 128 So. 477 (Kramer v. Smith) 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

Kramer v. Smith, 128 So. 477, 99 Fla. 1147 (Fla. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This appeal presents two questions for our determination, viz: A lack of necessary parties complainant, and that the final decree is not supported by the testimony.

The record discloses that the appellee, Smith, was trustee for Dora E. and W. F. Bozeman in which capacity he instituted this suit. It is contended that the Bozemans w'ere necessary parties to and should have been made parties complainant to the suit. Sec. 2561 Kev. Gen. Stats, of 1920 (being Sec. 4201 Comp. Gen. Laws of 1927) settles this question against appellants contention. See also Winer v. Trust Co. of Fla., 124 So. R. 35. We have examined the testimony carefully and it amply supports the finding of the Chancellor.

Affirmed.

Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

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

Per Curiam.

This appeal presents two questions for our determination, viz: A lack of necessary parties complainant, and that the final decree is not supported by the testimony.

The record discloses that the appellee, Smith, was trustee for Dora E. and W. F. Bozeman in which capacity he instituted this suit. It is contended that the Bozemans w'ere necessary parties to and should have been made parties complainant to the suit. Sec. 2561 Kev. Gen. Stats, of 1920 (being Sec. 4201 Comp. Gen. Laws of 1927) settles this question against appellants contention. See also Winer v. Trust Co. of Fla., 124 So. R. 35. We have examined the testimony carefully and it amply supports the finding of the Chancellor.

Affirmed.

Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 So. 477, 99 Fla. 1147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kramer-v-smith-fla-1930.