Sonz v. Rose-Marie
41 So. 2d 322
Fla.
1949
Check Treatment

Lead Opinion

Affirmed.

ADAMS, C.J., and THOMAS, SEBRING and HOBSON, JJ., concur.

TERRELL, CHAPMAN, and BARNS, JJ., dissent.





Dissenting Opinion

It is my view and conclusion that the second amended bill of complaint, as dismissed below, contains equity and its allegations are legally sufficient to establish a resulting trust and the appellees-defendants should be required to answer the same. See Lofton v. Sterrett, 23 Fla. 565, 2 So. 837; Geter v. Simmons, 57 Fla. 423, 49 So. 131; McGill v. Chappelle, 71 Fla. 479, 71 So. 836; Thomas v. Goodbread, 78 Fla. 278, 82 So. 835; Semple v. Semple, 90 Fla. 7, 105 So. 134; Dale v. Jennings,90 Fla. 234, 107 So. 175; Fisher v. Grady, 131 Fla. 1, 178 So. 852; Elvins v. Seestedt, 148 Fla. 408, 4 So.2d 532, and similar cases. From all the evidence adduced the Chancellor then could decree whether the deceased, Max Sonz, by each written instrument intended a gift or a resulting trust of the described property. I would reverse the order of dismissal of the second amended bill of complaint and require the appellees-defendants to answer.

TERRELL and BARNS, JJ., concur.