Opitz v. Morgan

Supreme Court of Florida

Opitz v. Morgan

67 So. 67, 68 Fla. 469

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedDecember 9, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 67 So. 67 (Opitz v. Morgan) 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

Opitz v. Morgan, 67 So. 67, 68 Fla. 469 (Fla. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Whitfield, J.

A bill in equity was brought by benefi ciaries of an estate alleging various acts of mismanage ment of the estate by the administrator with the will an-[470]*470Hexed and praying for an accounting, for discovery and for general relief. A demurrer to the bill of complaint on the ground that the relief sought could be had in the County Judge’s Court, in which court the settlement of the estate is pending, was sustained. An amended bill was filed and on motion it was dismissed. The complainants appealed.

A motion to dismiss a bill in equity for want of equity is not known to our practice. See Hull v. Burr, 61 Fla. 625, 55 South. Rep. 852.

Under the Constitution of 1868, which gave Circuit Courts “original jurisdiction in all cases in equity,” and “appellate jurisdiction of matters pertaining to the probate jurisdiction and the estates and interests of minors in the county courts,” it was held that a court of equity has concurrent jurisdiction with the probate court over the administration of the assets of deceased persons, and that the probate court may remove an administrator, but it cannot grant the same relief as a court of chancery. Sanderson’s Admr. v. Sanderson, 17 Fla. 820, text 831.

Under the present Constitution the Circuit Courts “have exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases in equity * * and supervision and appellate jurisdiction of matters arising before County Judges pertaining to their probate jurisdiction, or to the estates and interests of minors.”

It seems clear that the Circuit Court as courts of equity have jurisdiction in all such cases as this particularly where as in this case the probate court cannot administer the relief necessary to complete justice in the premises. This was the rule under the Constitution of 1868. See Ritch v. Bellamy, 14 Fla. 537.

The order appealed from is reversed.

[471]*4718hacklefobd, (J. J., and Taylob, Cockbell and Hockek, J. J., concur.

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

Whitfield, J.

A bill in equity was brought by benefi ciaries of an estate alleging various acts of mismanage ment of the estate by the administrator with the will an-[470]*470Hexed and praying for an accounting, for discovery and for general relief. A demurrer to the bill of complaint on the ground that the relief sought could be had in the County Judge’s Court, in which court the settlement of the estate is pending, was sustained. An amended bill was filed and on motion it was dismissed. The complainants appealed.

A motion to dismiss a bill in equity for want of equity is not known to our practice. See Hull v. Burr, 61 Fla. 625, 55 South. Rep. 852.

Under the Constitution of 1868, which gave Circuit Courts “original jurisdiction in all cases in equity,” and “appellate jurisdiction of matters pertaining to the probate jurisdiction and the estates and interests of minors in the county courts,” it was held that a court of equity has concurrent jurisdiction with the probate court over the administration of the assets of deceased persons, and that the probate court may remove an administrator, but it cannot grant the same relief as a court of chancery. Sanderson’s Admr. v. Sanderson, 17 Fla. 820, text 831.

Under the present Constitution the Circuit Courts “have exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases in equity * * and supervision and appellate jurisdiction of matters arising before County Judges pertaining to their probate jurisdiction, or to the estates and interests of minors.”

It seems clear that the Circuit Court as courts of equity have jurisdiction in all such cases as this particularly where as in this case the probate court cannot administer the relief necessary to complete justice in the premises. This was the rule under the Constitution of 1868. See Ritch v. Bellamy, 14 Fla. 537.

The order appealed from is reversed.

[471]*4718hacklefobd, (J. J., and Taylob, Cockbell and Hockek, J. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 So. 67, 68 Fla. 469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/opitz-v-morgan-fla-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack