Title: In Re Estate of Watkins
Citation: 284 So. 2d 679
Docket Number: 43748
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: October 10, 1973

284 So. 2d 679 (1973)
In re ESTATE OF Maurine Dallas WATKINS, Deceased.
TRUSTEES OF the AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS, Petitioner,
v.
William T. ROGERS, As Administrator Ad Litem for the Estate of Georgia M. Watkins, Deceased, et al., Respondents.
No. 43748.

Supreme Court of Florida.
October 10, 1973.
Rehearing Denied November 30, 1973.
*680 Marion R. Shepard, Jacksonville, for petitioner.
Stephen D. Busey of Bedell, Bedell, Dittmar, Smith &amp; Zehmer, Jacksonville, for respondents.
ERVIN, Justice.
This is a conflict certiorari review of the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, in In Re Estate of Maurine Dallas Watkins, Deceased, 274 So. 2d 586.
This case involves the construction of the will of Maurine Dallas Watkins, testatrix. She left the bulk of her estate to various religious, charitable, and educational institutions.
By Clause VI of the will the testatrix directed:
At her death on August 18, 1969, testatrix's estate included certificates for 400 shares of Amerada Petroleum Corporation stock. All parties to this litigation stipulated that testatrix in using the words Amerada Oil meant Amerada Petroleum Corporation. However, on June 20, 1969, prior to testatrix's death, Amerada Petroleum Corporation and Hess Oil and Chemical Corporation merged forming Amerada Hess Corporation. On the merger Amerada shares were converted into $3.50 cumulative convertible preferred shares of the new corporation, being convertible into common stock one year after the merger.
Testatrix's will provided in Clause III:
Testatrix's executor, The Florida National Bank of Jacksonville, petitioned the probate Court of Duval County, Florida, for construction of the will to determine whether the Amerada-Hess stock passed to the Trustees of the American School under Clause VI, C, or to the estate of testatrix's mother, who had died more than 60 days after testatrix's death.
After a trial of the issue the Probate Court ruled as follows:
The District Court reversed. It said at 274 So.2d 586:
Petitioner contends the District Court decision conflicts with In Re Vail's Estate (Fla.), 67 So. 2d 665; Eisenschenk v. Fowler (Fla.), 82 So. 2d 876, and Forbes v. Burket (DCA2d), 208 So. 2d 670. We agree.
This Court in In Re Vail's Estate held:
We agree with Petitioner that when there is no act on the part of a testator manifesting a change of intent, there is no ademption of the property bequested if it is in existence or can be traced.
We conclude there was no basis in law for the District Court to reach a different conclusion from the finding and judgment of the probate judge. We agree with the latter that no act of the testatrix manifesting a change of intent occurred in this case.
The decision of the District Court is quashed with direction that the judgment of the Probate Court be reinstated.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON, C.J., and BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.