Volume 88 — Florida Reports

<p>1. Sections 3S82-3884, Revised General Statutes, give to the courts of equity full and. complete jurisdiction over the matter of homesteads and exemptions, not only to adjudicate as to the rights of the parties thereto, but t'o control and direct the setting apart thereof, and to restrain interference there~ with by any inhibited process of law; and to pass upon and1! adjudicate the propriety of any exemption set apart by an®; officer and to rectify it if improper.</p>

<p>A Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Polk County, John S. Edwards, Judge.</p>

<p>A Writ of Error to the-Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, E. C. Davis, Judge.</p>

<p>A Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Volusia County, J. J. Dickinson, Judge.</p>

<p>A Writ of Error .to the Circuit Court for Walton County, A. G-. Campbell, Judge.</p>

<p>A Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Duval County, Daniel A. Simmons, Judge.</p>

<p>1. Every person is presumed to be ‘sane until the contrary appears, and in civil actions the burden of proof of insanity rests upon him who alleges it.</p> <p>2. The finding of a Chancellor on conflicting evidence is presumptively correct, and where there is legal evidence to support it the decree will not be reversed unless it clearly appears to be erroneous.</p> <p>3. Where it is shown that a testator had his will in his custody and it cann'ot be found after his death it is presumed, in the absence of other evidence, that he destroyed it with intention to revoke.</p> <p>4. Generally wills are ambulatory and have no operation until the death of the testator.</p> <p>5. The execution of a second will, which is afterwards destroyed by the testator, does not affect the validity of a will previously executed by him.</p> <p>6. In the absence of a showing of contrary intent, the destruction by the testator of a will executed by him which Contained a provision revoking former wills, may revive a will previously made by the testator and in existence at the date of his death.</p>

<p>A Writ of Prohibition will not be issued to prevent a circuit Court taking testimony as to the truth of denials under oath of the allegations in a contempt proceeding charging affirmative violation of an injunction order issued by a court of equity.</p>

<p>1. In the construction of a will, the intention of the testator, as therein expressed, shall prevail over all other considerations, if consistent with the principles of law. To this great rule in the exposition of wills, all others must bend.</p> <p>2. In this case the intent of the testator, as shown by his last will taken as an entirety and considered in the light of the circumstances stated in the will and shown by the evidence to exist at the date of the will, is that the testator’s divorced wife, who had already received her share of the testator’s estate, be excluded from further participation in his estate; that the property shall be taken, held and administered and the net income therefrom enjoyed by his son, Melvin, subject to “an income from” the “estate amounting to not less than one hundred dollars per month,” to be paid to the testator’s daughter Vida Blanche during her natural life, and that if at the death of the daughter Vida Blanche if the son Melvin be living, the whole estate shall be the son’s freed from the stated monthly payments, with a limitation that in the event the son Melvin should die without issue and the daughter Vida Blanche should survive him, the daughter Vida Blanche should have the entire estate, and that his daughter Vida Blanche shall receive an income from his estate amounting to not less than one hundred dollars per month, and further that after provision has been made for all necessary repairs, betterments and fixed charges, so as to avoid deterioration or neglect of the property, the stated amount of $100.00 per month that shall be paid to the testator’s daughter, may be increased if the net income will so permit. The determination of whether the net income will permit an increase of the monthly payments of $100.00 to the testator’s daughter is not left to the sole and arbitrary discretion of the testator’s son; but is subject t'o review and approval or disapproval by the court.-</p>

<p>• An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; M. A. McMullen, Judge.</p>

<p>A Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Glades County; George W. Whitehurst, Judge.</p>

<p>1. The burden of proving ,agency is on the party asserting it.</p> <p>2. A principal is not bound by the acts of his agent committed 'outside the scope of his authority unless such acts are known to or brought home to the principal.</p> <p>3. Persons dealing with an agent are charged with the responsibility of satisfying themselves as to the scope of the agent’s authority.</p>

<p>An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County; A. G. Campbell, Judge.</p>

<p>A Writ of Error to- the Circuit Court for Orange County; C. 0. Andrews, Judge.</p>