preferred claim in Florida

1940Glidden v. Gutelius, 96 Fla. 834 , 119 So. 140 , rehearing denied (Fla.) 120 So. 1 ; Meyers v. Matusek, 98 Fla. 1126 , 125 So. 360 .” The same rule should be applied to an administrator taking possession of a trust fund and commingled with the corpus of an estate of a decedent which applies to a liquidator as successor trustee.

1940Glidden v. Gutelius, 96 Fla. 834 , 119 So. 140 , rehearing denied (Fla.) 120 So. 1 ; Meyers v. Matusek, 98 Fla. 1126 , 125 So. 360 .” The same rule should be applied to an administrator taking possession of a trust fund and commingled with the corpus of an estate of a decedent which applies to a liquidator as successor trustee.

1940Glidden v. Gutelius, 96 Fla. 834 , 119 So. 140 , rehearing denied (Fla.) 120 So. 1 ; Meyers v. Matusek, 98 Fla. 1126 , 125 So. 360 .” The same rule should be applied to an administrator taking possession of a trust fund and commingled with the corpus of an estate of a decedent which applies to a liquidator as successor trustee.

1940Glidden v. Gutelius, 96 Fla. 834 , 119 So. 140 , rehearing denied (Fla.) 120 So. 1 ; Meyers v. Matusek, 98 Fla. 1126 , 125 So. 360 .” The same rule should be applied to an administrator taking possession of a trust fund and commingled with the corpus of an estate of a decedent which applies to a liquidator as successor trustee.

1931In this case the facts do not bring it within the rule laid down in Bryan v. Coconut Grove Bank & Trust Co., 101 Fla. 947 ; 132 So. 481 , because it is nowhere shown that the depositor ever did more than appear at the bank with the intention of withdrawing her deposit; it is nowhere alleged or shown that the attempted withdrawal proceeded to the point of presentation and acceptance of a check on the bank accompanied by the pass book which was the agreed way in which the deposit was required to be withdrawn, according to the allegations of the pleadings in this case.

1931In this case the facts do not bring it within the rule laid down in Bryan v. Coconut Grove Bank & Trust Co., 101 Fla. 947 ; 132 So. 481 , because it is nowhere shown that the depositor ever did more than appear at the bank with the intention of withdrawing her deposit; it is nowhere alleged or shown that the attempted withdrawal proceeded to the point of presentation and acceptance of a check on the bank accompanied by the pass book which was the agreed way in which the deposit was required to be withdrawn, according to the allegations of the pleadings in this case.

1992See, e.g., § 440.151, Fla. Stat. (occupational diseases); Festa v. Teleflex, Inc., 382 So.2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (repetitive trauma or exposure), rev. denied, 388 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 1980). [6] "Injury" is defined, in part, as "personal injury or death by accident arising out of and in the course of employment." § 440.20(16), Fla. Stat. (1989). [7] Professor Larson considers that the unusual-exertion test, which requires that the exertion be compared with the type of work the employee was accustomed to performing, in a case alleging an aggravation of a prior condition, is not the preferred te

1963Lisk v. Lisk (1891), 155 Mass. 153 , 29 N.E. 375 .” (Emphasis supplied.) It has been held that a widow’s allowance is merely a preferred claim against the estate of the deceased which may, however, be waived like any other claim.

1963Lisk v. Lisk (1891), 155 Mass. 153 , 29 N.E. 375 .” (Emphasis supplied.) It has been held that a widow’s allowance is merely a preferred claim against the estate of the deceased which may, however, be waived like any other claim.

1963In re Somerville’s Estate, 64 S.D. 238 , 266 N.W. 158 .

1963In re Somerville’s Estate, 64 S.D. 238 , 266 N.W. 158 .

1937A. Smith as Liquidator of Merchants Bank & Trust Company, a corporation, do, out of the assets of said bank forthwith pay to the plaintiff and his solicitor of record the sum of $11,250.00, with accrued interest at 6% per annum from July 2nd, 1929, together with the costs and charges of this suit paid by plaintiff herein taxed at $15.20, and also $25.00 for the Special Examiner’s charges.” The decree sets out the salient facts and shows them to be such that the appellant, Liquidator of a state banking institution, is attempting to maintain a position other than the one which his' predecessor i

1937A. Smith as Liquidator of Merchants Bank & Trust Company, a corporation, do, out of the assets of said bank forthwith pay to the plaintiff and his solicitor of record the sum of $11,250.00, with accrued interest at 6% per annum from July 2nd, 1929, together with the costs and charges of this suit paid by plaintiff herein taxed at $15.20, and also $25.00 for the Special Examiner’s charges.” The decree sets out the salient facts and shows them to be such that the appellant, Liquidator of a state banking institution, is attempting to maintain a position other than the one which his' predecessor i

1933The decree should be affirmed upon the authority of Everglade Cypress Co. v. Tunnicliffe, Liquidator, opinion filed 2nd day of January, 1933, decided at this term of this Court, 107 Fla. 675 , 148 So. 192 .

1933The decree should be affirmed upon the authority of Everglade Cypress Co. v. Tunnicliffe, Liquidator, opinion filed 2nd day of January, 1933, decided at this term of this Court, 107 Fla. 675 , 148 So. 192 .

1929Collins v. State, 33 Fla. 429 , 15 So.

1928The remainder of the decree should be affirmed on authority *185 of the opinion in the case of the City of Miami v. Shutts, 59 Fla. 462 , 51 So.