Case Name: In re ESTATE of Edward H. MILLER, Deceased. Hazel M. MILLER, also known as Hazel Matherly, Appellant, v. Virginia M. EASON, as Administratrix of the Estate of Edward H. Miller, Deceased, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1969-02-05
Citations: 218 So. 2d 194
Docket Number: No. 68-298
Parties: In re ESTATE of Edward H. MILLER, Deceased. Hazel M. MILLER, also known as Hazel Matherly, Appellant, v. Virginia M. EASON, as Administratrix of the Estate of Edward H. Miller, Deceased, Appellee.
Judges: LILES, C. J., and PIERCE and MANN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 218
Pages: 194–195

Head Matter:
In re ESTATE of Edward H. MILLER, Deceased. Hazel M. MILLER, also known as Hazel Matherly, Appellant, v. Virginia M. EASON, as Administratrix of the Estate of Edward H. Miller, Deceased, Appellee.
No. 68-298.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.
Feb. 5, 1969.
John T. Ware, St. Petersburg, for appellant.
Elmore D. Harris, Gardner W. Beckett, Jr., of Nelson, Beckett, Nelson & Thomas, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Edward H. Miller died intestate May 4, 1967. Thereafter his sister, Virginia M. Eason, petitioned for letters of administration. Subsequently, Hazel M. Miller filed her petition for revocation of letters of administration and petitioned that she be appointed administratrix of the estate, asserting her status as a common law wife of the decedent.
After a hearing, the county judge held that Hazel M. Miller was not the common law wife of the decedent and refused to revoke the letters of administration of Virginia M. Eason. This appeal followed.
The only point for this court's consideration urged by appellant is that the court erred in finding that Hazel M. Miller was not the wife and surviving widow of Edward H. Miller, deceased. We have studied the briefs, record, and other matters pertaining to this cause and believe this to be simply a question of fact. The facts were before the county judge and, while they are in conflict, there is an abundance of evidence to support the county judge's decision.
Affirmed.
LILES, C. J., and PIERCE and MANN, JJ., concur.