Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

140 Fla. 48

191 So 25

Black v. Walker, Et Vir

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided September 15, 1939

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1939-09-15

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“was for the same amount and purpose as the original claim”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 737 So. 2d 1229 - Estate of Shearer v. AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE

Relies on Ramseyer v. Datson · Barnes v. Scott

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1939-09-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 2010

9 state decisions

40193919401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam. —

¶1 Defendant in error as plaintiff brought this action against the plaintiff in error as defendant to recover for services rendered defendant’s testatrix, who died in- 1931. There was a judgment for the plaintiff and defendant took writ of error.

¶2 It is contended that the claim is barred under Sub-section' 2 of Section 4648, Compiled General Laws of 1927, because action was not brought within two years from the issuance of letters testamentary.

¶3*49 The record discloses that the claim was filed within one year from the appointment of the executor, but after two years had expired, the executor required a more specific statement of the claim. The county judge properly permitted defendant in error to amend her claim in certain particulars, no change being made in the amount. The amended claim was rejected in 1934, and suit was then promptly instituted against the executor The statute referred to did not bar this action. See Barnes v. Scott, 29 Fla. 285, 11 So. 48 Ramseyer v. Datson, 120 Fla. 414, 162 So. 903. See also 76 A. L. R. 1380.

¶4 The amended claim was filed under the direction of the county judge and was for the same amount and purpose as the original claim. Other particulars in which it was amended are not material. It was for services rendered which are admitted to have been performed. It would be a gross injustice to permit it to be defeated under such circumstances.

¶5 Affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Ci-iapman, J. J., concur. Terrell, C. J., concurs in opinion and judgment. Justices Buford and Ti-iomas not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
/140/fla/48 · .json · Public domain