istrators. have to look after evidence to defend | § 39. Actions by executors or admmthe estate, the stringency of the rule in regard to diligence in securing the evidence is somewhat relaxed. Owens v. Love, 9 Fla. 325. (1874). Where a court of chancery acquires jurisdiction of a decedent's estate, for one purpose, this will draw to it the right to adjust the entire administration. Ritch v. Bellamy, 14 Fla. 537. (1878). A service of subpoena upon a sheriff, as ex-officio administrator, before he has been ordered by a judge of probate to take charge of the estate of a deceased mortgagor, does not authorize a decree pro confesso. Wilson v. Dibble, 16 Fla. 782. (1880). In a suit by an executor against co-executor to recover a share of money allowed by the court as commissions, it is immaterial that the plain tiff was willing, anxious, and ready to perform his part of the duties as execu tor. Bellamy v. Hawkins, 17 Fla. 750. (1883). An executor can not be compelled to pay costs of a suit brought within six months after taking out let ters. Cooper v. Livingston, 19 Fla. 684. (1893). The effect of act of February 27, 1872, § 15, is to extend in some cases, but not to shorten in any, the time in which an action must be commenced by or against an executor or administrator. Sammis v. Wightman, 31 Fla. 10, 12 So. 526. (1855). In an action by an executor, where the defendant sets up as a bar to the action that the executor had received assets sufficient to satisfy his debt, it is not necessary to allege the solvency of the estate unless insolvency is relied on to bring the case within the operation of the statute, when it should be averred in the replication. Sealey v. Thomas, 6 Fla. 25. (1881). While an administrator may maintain ejectment upon the title of the intestate to recover possession, yet not being owner joint tenant, tenant in common or co-parcener, within the meaning of the statute giving the right to partition, he can not have partition. Whitlock v. Willard, 18 Fla. 156. (1906). One properly removed from the administration by the county judge has no locus standi as administrator to file a bill asking to have the estate administered in a court of equity. Milton v. Hundley, 52 Fla. 540, 42 as administrator of the estate of a named So. 185. (1906). An allegation in a declaration that a named person was duly appointed deceased minor is a sufficient allegation of the granting of letters of administra-entitles her to retain, and which is altion. leged to be fraudulently withheld from her by the administrator. Bowden v. Jacksonville Electric Co., 51 Fla. 152, 41 So. 400, 7 Ann. Cas. 859. § 41. Roberts v. Roberts, 75 Fla. 603, 78 -Defenses. (1907). Against a bill by an administrator for refunding from a distribu(1847). By act of February 15, 1834, tee upon a deficiency of assets to pay debts, the bar of the statute of limita-85, a discharge granted an executor or tions does not commence to run until administrator by the court of probate is the diligent discovery by the adminis- a bar to suits against the executor or administrator in his fiduciary capacity, trator of the deficiency of assets. Clifton v. Clifton, 54 Fla. 535, 45 but is not a bar to suits for any personal So. 458. § 40. Actions against administrators. (1860). Where the executor or administrator wishes to put on the plaintiff the burden of proving the consideration liability incurred in the management of the assets if the suit be bought within five years from date of discharge. Gadsden v. Jones, 1 Fla. 332. (1847). Nil debet may be pleaded for the testator's or intestate's writing to an action against executors suggest obligatory, he must plead under oath before the case is called on the appearance docket. Knight v. Knight, 9 Fla. 283. (1860). An executor or administrator, under the act of November 23, 1828, § 24, may deny the signature of his testator or intestate to any bond or instrument purporting to have been signed by him, and also plead a want or failure of consideration by a plea not sworn to, and after the cause is called on the appearance docket, on giving reasonable notice; and the effect of such plea will be to oblige the plaintiff to prove the signature, and the defendant the want or failure of consideration. Knight v. Knight, 9 Fla. 283. (1882). Upon institution of suit against him, the administrator may discharge further liability for interest by paying the money into court. Sherrell v. Shepard, 19 Fla. 300. ing a devastavit. Archer v. Brown, 1 Fla. 219. (1918). A court of chancery will en- (1907). A former administrator is not tertain jurisdiction of a widow's suit a necessary party to a suit by the heirs for personal property which the statute at law for equitable relief where the bill seeks no relief against the admin-[state, are duly authenticated or not is istrator. a question for the court. (1874). A judgment against a "sheriff as administrator ex officio," who is not empowered so to act by the order of the probate court, can not bind the estate. Davis v. Shuler, 14 Fla. 438. Sullivan v. Honacker, 6 Fla. 372. (1855). Whether foreign letters of administration are properly authenticated is a question for the court and not for the jury. Sullivan v. Honacker, 6 Fla. 372. (1855). In a suit by executors or administrators, who have obtained their letters testamentary or of administration in another state, it is error to instruct the jury that the plaintiffs can not recover without producing the probate of the will or letters of administration duly obtained, etc., and properly authenticated. Sullivan v. Honacker, 6 Fla. 372. A foreign executor may sue, but can not be sued in this state, nor will consent give jurisdiction. (1860) Gordon v. Simonton, 10 Fla. 179; (1885) Sloan v. Sloan, 21 Fla. 589. (1884). The term "goods" in the statute governing the grant of letters of adA judgment against executor or ad- ministration in this state upon the esministrator on a note given by the de- tate of a person dying out of this state cedent should be that the plaintiff recov-possessed of "goods and chattels" in er against the defendant as executor or this state includes bills, notes and choses administrator of the deceased to be in action. made out of the goods, etc., of the estate of the deceased, and that he have execution thereof, and not against the defendant generally. (1883) Cooper v. Livingston, 19 Fla. 684; (1884) Higgins v. Driggs, 21 Fla. 103. Epping v. Robinson, 21 Fla. 36. (1884). The provisions of the statute that foreign administrators may bring suits in this state, and that special letters of administration may be obtained by one specially authorized by foreign representatives, for the collection of debts due the deceased, are not exclusive §45. Foreign and ancillary administra- of the power to grant letters generally tion. (1855). Whether letters testamentary, or of administration obtained in another within the state in cases provided by law. Epping v. Robinson, 21 Fla. 36. (1896). Foreign administrators are entitled to sue in this state. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. Margarum v. J. S. Christie Orange See Damages, § 6. EXECUTORY CONTRACTS. Sales of realty, see Vendor and Purchaser of Real Property, § 9. EXECUTORY DEVISE. Defined, see Wills, § 35. Evidence to support in action for libel, see Libel and Slander, § 10. In actions for libel or slander, see Libel and Slander, § 13. EXEMPLIFICATION. Records as evidence, see Evidence, § 88. EXEMPTIONS. This topic INCLUDES statutory and constitutional exemptions from liability to seizure and sale, under legal process for payment of debts, of movable property of debtors. It EXCLUDES exemption from forced sale of real property as homestead (Homestead); exemption of property of decedents from administration, and allowances therefrom to widow or children of decedent (Executors and Administrators); and exemption from taxation (Taxation). § 1. Nature of right in general. (1874). As to the judgment creditor, the status of the exempt property of the judgment debtor is not changed by his death. Alexander v. Kilpatrick, 14 Fla. 450. (1878). A debtor claiming personalty under act of June 23, 1869, is not obliged to make oath that he is the head of a family residing in this state. Loring v. Wittich, 16 Fla. 498. treated as a selection pro tanto of the debtor's exemption. Florida Loan & Trust Co. v. Crabb, 45 Fla. 306, 33 So. 523. § 2. Persons entitled. (1874). Judgment obtained prior to the Constitution of 1868, and execution levied after upon the property of the judgment debtor deceased. Held, that under the Constitution of 1868 the heirs may claim their exemption, no right to subject the property so exempted having existed prior to the Constitution of 1868, and therefore no right of the cred (1879). Under the act of June 23, 1869, § 9, a creditor can not by bill in equity test the debtor's right to an ex-itor is impaired. emption of personal property. Haynes v. McGehee, 17 Fla. 159. Constitutional exemption may be claimed as against a distress for rent (but not in agricultural products raised on the land). (1894) Hodges v. Cooksey, 33 Fla. Alexander v. Kilpatrick, 14 Fla. 450. (1910). A contractor, who purchases material and uses it in the erection of a building for another, can not have an exemption in the amount due him for erecting the building, as against claims for the purchase-price of the material so purchased and used. Giddens v. Dickenson, 60 Fla. 320, 53 So. 929. (1920). Exempt property is for the benefit of the "heirs" as well as the "widow" of the owner. Hutchinson v. Stone, Fla. So. 151. 84 (1903). Under R. S. 2007, equity has jurisdiction upon application of a judgment creditor claiming that his debtor owns more than $1,000 worth of personal property over and above tnat levied on, which the debtor conceals and fails to point out to the officer to ascertain if the property is concealed, to de- §3. Property and rights exempt in gentermine what property shall be set aside as exempt, and, pending the proceed- (1875). Under art. 9, § 1, of the Coning, to enjoin the officer from setting stitution of 1868, the exemption can not aside as exempt the property levied be claimed as against a mortgage of upon. Camp v. Mullen, 46 Fla. 498, 35 So. 399. (1903). The concealment or removal beyond the reach of his creditors of a part of his personal property by a defendant in attachment, as a preliminary to claiming his exemption, will, where the property remains concealed, be eral. personal property. Patterson v. Taylor, 15 Fla. 336. (1880). The appraisement and selection of personal property, claimed to be exempt from levy and sale, do not determine whether the property is lawfully exempt; that question is for a court of law to determine. Christopher v. Bowden, 17 Fla. 603. |