A. S. PENDRY, APPELLANT,
v.
A. D. WRIGHT 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.
Pendry appeals from a decision in an equity proceeding over disputed land boundaries. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that a dispute over the true location of a section boundary line is a question of legal title cognizable only in a court of law, not equity, and dismissed the bill.
The court held that equity has no jurisdiction over a naked question of title to land. The real controversy—the true location of the government section line and whether a party is estopped by conduct from claiming a portion of occupied land—is a matter of legal title and right of possession cognizable only in a court of law, not equity.
“this is not a case of 'confusion of boundaries,' but a menace of complainants' rights by appellant”
Establishes that the case involves a direct claim of ownership and threat to possession, not merely uncertain or confused boundary lines
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondents Wright and others claimed to own certain lands with a northern boundary they alleged was established by United States Government surveyors…
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 Jurisdiction Of Equity Courts cases and more on FLexlaw
The Chiee-Justice delivered the opinion of the court.
There is certainly no ground for the interposition of equitable jurisdiction in this case. The complaint is that plaintiffs are the owners of certain lauds, the northern boundary of which has been recognized by appellant, and they occupy the land to this boundary, which they allege is the northern line of the section ; and that this line corresponds to the lines of the adjacent sections as they were established by the surveyor’s under the author^ of the United States Government. They charge that appellant now claims to own a portion of this land, to wit: about 18 rods wide; that he claims the line established by the United States instead of being .on the northern boundary of the premises occupied by complainants is 18 or 20 rods south, and that he has induced a couuty surveyor to run this more southerly line and declare it to be the true boundary line, and has pretended to find a decayed post which he pretends is the original corner post, and pretends that it was found where it was originally set by the United States surveyor to mark the corner of the section; all which actings and pretences were, falsely and fraudulently devised and contrived as a basis of a claim to the ownership of a part of complainants’ land which appellant threatens to take possession of.
As complainants have suggested in their brief, this is not a case of “ confusion of boundaries,” but a menace of complainants’ rights by appellant. The boundaries of the section are defined upon the minutes of surveys in the United States Land Office, and' they cannot be affected by the alleged fraudulent conduct of appellant. The real controversy is over the true location of the line, and whether appellant is estopped by matter in pais to claim any portion of the land 'occupied by complainants, even if the government surveys do locate the section line further south. In other words, it is a claim of ownshership of land by both parties, the true boundaries whereof are matters of fact equally accessible to them, and the title and right of possession are cognizable in a court of law and not in a court of equity. It is a naked question of title of which a court of equity has no jurisdiction. Doggett vs. Hart, 5 Fla., 215; Wake vs. Conyers, 1 Eden, 331, with English and American Notes in 2 White & Tudor’s L. Gas. in Eq., Part I, 850 to 864; 1 Story’s Eq. Jur., 7th Ed., §§615, 622; Pomeroy’s Eq. Jur., §§1384, 1385.
The decree is reversed and the bill must be dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. Wetmore, 51 Fla. 614 (Fla. 1906)…e equity superinduced by the act of the parties, such as fraud, gross negligence or misconduct on the part of those whose duty it is to preserve and perpetuate such boundaries.” The doctrine of this case was followed and applied in Pendry v. Wright, 20 Fla. 828. In the case of Boyd v. Dowie, 65 Barb. (N. Y.) 237, there is an extensive examination of the English and Afaerican authorities, and the conclusion of the court is that a “confusion of boundaries o'f lands exists when by [*624] the deeds thereof, or…
-
Maull v. Lindsley, 79 Fla. 361 (Fla. 1920)…provisions. This decree was appealed from. [*364] The allegations* of the bill of complaint do not show a case of confusion of boundaries cognizable in a court of equity. See 4 R. C. L. 75; 9 C. J. 267; Doggett v. Hart, 5 Fla. 215; Pendry v. Wright, 20 Fla. 828; 5 Pom. Eq. Jur. Sec. 2116 et seq.; 5 Cyc. 952; 4 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2nd ed.) 839. The purpose of the suit was to abate an obstruction of an alleged dedicated public highway, upon the theory that the complainants were specially and peculiarly in…
Authorities Cited
- Doggett v. Isaiah D. Hart and others, 5 Fla. 215 (Fla. 1853)