McDonough v. Rudisill

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McDonough v. Rudisill

229 So. 2d 268

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 12, 1969

DocketNos. 68-385, 386

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 229 So. 2d 268 (McDonough v. Rudisill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McDonough v. Rudisill, 229 So. 2d 268 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

McNULTY, Judge.

The administrator of the estate of C. A. Rudisill, deceased, directly appeals from the judgments herein in favor of appellees, in which the trial court awarded appellees a sum equal to the value of certain stock certificates which had passed from the decedent during his lifetime to appellees and subsequently delivered back by appellees for, they now say, his convenience. It is not disputed that with their authority he sold the certificates, but made no subsequent accounting to appellees prior to his death.

The issues in these consolidated cases center around first, whether the decedent made a completed gift to his niece and nephew, the appellees Kay Rudisill and Henry Clifford Rudisill, II, respectively; and secondly, whether they subsequently made a gift back. The record abounds with evidence from which the trial court could, as it did, answer the first question in the affirmative, and is completely devoid of competent evidence from which it could find, and it did not so find, a gift back.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from should be, and the same is hereby,

Affirmed.

HOBSON, C. J., and MANN, J., concur.

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

McNULTY, Judge.

The administrator of the estate of C. A. Rudisill, deceased, directly appeals from the judgments herein in favor of appellees, in which the trial court awarded appellees a sum equal to the value of certain stock certificates which had passed from the decedent during his lifetime to appellees and subsequently delivered back by appellees for, they now say, his convenience. It is not disputed that with their authority he sold the certificates, but made no subsequent accounting to appellees prior to his death.

The issues in these consolidated cases center around first, whether the decedent made a completed gift to his niece and nephew, the appellees Kay Rudisill and Henry Clifford Rudisill, II, respectively; and secondly, whether they subsequently made a gift back. The record abounds with evidence from which the trial court could, as it did, answer the first question in the affirmative, and is completely devoid of competent evidence from which it could find, and it did not so find, a gift back.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from should be, and the same is hereby,

Affirmed.

HOBSON, C. J., and MANN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 So. 2d 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdonough-v-rudisill-fladistctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack