A. L. DUNCAN, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN JACKSON, ET ALS., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this ejectment action for a lot in Pensacola, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a jury verdict that awarded the plaintiffs (appellants) possession of half the lot but no mesne profits, holding that the jury failed to comply with court instructions and uncontradicted testimony regarding fair rental value.
The jury erred in awarding no damages for mesne profits where uncontradicted testimony established the fair rental value and the court properly instructed the jury on the plaintiff's statutory right to recover mesne profits. The defendants cannot set off or recoup the value of improvements unless that value is first ascertained according to the statutory method prescribed in the occupying claimants statute.
“the plaintiff is entitled to recover mesne profits”
States the statutory right of plaintiffs in ejectment actions under Florida law (Chapter 999, Laws)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe action involved a dispute over a lot in Pensacola. The jury found for the plaintiffs but awarded judgment for only one-half of the lot and no dama…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mesne Profits cases and more on FLexlaw
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action of ejectment wherein there was judgment for the appellants, who were plaintiffs in the court below. The land for which the action was brought was a lot in the city of Pensacola, and the judgment was for one-half of it. There was a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and from the consequent judgment this appeal is prosecuted. There are several grounds upon which this motion was based, but in the disposition of the case we refer to only one. Under our statute, (Chapter 999, Laws,) the 'plaintiff is entitled to recover mesne profits. The jury was so instructed in this case. There was no conflict in the tes*339timony. The witness W. E. Lee testified that “ a fair rental value of the premises since suit was brought would be about nine dollars per month. I will say one hundred dollars per year. The yearly rental of a vacant lot like lot number thirty would be three or four dollars per month.” The jury in giving no damages failed to comply with the instructions of the court, as well as to conform to the uncontradicted testimony in the cause. The respondíais insist that the jury did not give damages, because the value of the improvements was considered equal to the rents. If the defendants were entitled to the value of the improvements under the statutes of this State, (the statute for the relief of occupying claimants, Chap. 233, Laws,) the method prescribed by the act for ascertaining the value of the improvements must be followed. Before this is thus ascertained, the defendant cannot be said to have any right which he can set off or recoup. As this case goes again to a jury, we do not comment on the other questions. They relate principally to conclusions of fact, and only involve the consideration of some rules of evidence, which can be best administered without embarassment from this court in the trial to be had.
Judgment reversed and new trial awarded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raulerson v. Peeples, 79 Fla. 367 (Fla. 1920)…mprovements placed on the land. Even if such claim could be niai'ntained which we do not decide it can only be heard after there has been a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the ejectment suit. Mountain v. Roche, 13 Fla. 581; Duncan v. Jackson, 16 Fla. 338; Asia v. Hiser, 22 Fla. 378. There being no sufficient allegations in the bill to justify the granting of an injunction the order granting such temporary injunction is reversed. Per Curiam. — The record in this cause, having been considered by thi…
-
Sim Asia v. Hiser, 22 Fla. 378 (Fla. 1886)