LOUIS DUBOIS, APPELLANT,
v.
AMOS HOLMES, APPELLEE
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, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment for the plaintiff because the plaintiff failed to prove that his grantors had title or possession to the disputed land. The court held that a mere deed of conveyance, without evidence that the grantor had title or peaceable possession, is insufficient to support a verdict in ejectment.
No. A plaintiff in ejectment cannot prevail on the mere production of deeds without proving that his grantors either had title or were in peaceable possession claiming title. A deed standing alone is not evidence of title in the grantor.
“It is incumbent on the plaintiff in ejectment to prove proper conveyances from a party having the title. If the conveyance is from a party in peaceable possession claiming title at the time it was executed, that is sufficient for that is prima facie evidence of title.”
Establishes the foundational requirement that plaintiff must prove either title or peaceable possession in the grantor
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHolmes brought an ejectment action against Dubois to recover two parcels of land in Duval County. Holmes introduced two deeds as his only evidence: a …
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.
The Chiee#ustice delivered the opinion of the court.
Ejectment brought by Holmes against appellant for two parcels of land in Duval county. Plea, not guilty.
Plaintiff introduced in evidence a deed to himself executed by Thomas Coskery in 1879, and a deed by J. J. Daniel to plaintiff in 1881, conveying the respective parcels. These deeds comprised the whole evidence.
. The court charged the jury that if it found that Coskery and Daniel conveyed by deeds duly executed the land sued for and that defendant has shown no legal title or right of possession their verdict should be for the plaintiff. Defendant excepted.
Defendant’s counsel asked the court to instruct the jury that unless they find from the testimony some otl^er source of title or right of possession than is afforded by the deeds of Coskery and of Daniel they should find for defendant. The court refused so to charge and exception was taken.
Verdict for plaintiff and judgment thereon from which defendant appealed.
It is incumbent on the plaintiff in ejectment to prove proper conveyances from a party having the title. If the conveyance is from a party in peaceable possession claiming title at the time it was executed, that is sufficient for that is prima fade evidence of title. Tyler on Ejectment, 541. The production of a deed of conveyance, upon the trial of all action of ejectment, will not entitle a plaintiff to a verdict when the title is in dispute. ISTor will such evidence put the adverse party upon his defence. He must show in addition, either that his grantor and those under whom he claims had the title or the possession claiming title. Dominy vs. Miller, 33 Barbour, 386; Stevens vs. Hauser, 39 N. Y., 302. In the absence of a regular documentary title there should have been introduced at least presumptive evidence by showing some possession, or other $fact such as is allowed by the common law to make out a prima fade case of ownership. The giving of a deed is no evidence of title in the grautor. Smith vs. Lawrence, 12 Mich., 431.
This is believed to be the rule everywhere except in Massachusetts. Artemas Ward vs. Fuller, 15 Pick., 185; Higbee vs. Rice, 5 Mass., 352. But there the rule is founded upon the phraseology of the statute.
Here we have no evidence that plaintiff’s grantor ever had title or possession. It is not a ease of vacant or unoccupied land for the defendant is in possession, and the plaintiff must show a superior right in himself or his grantors.
It is claimed here that Coskery and Daniel have a title because they have executed a deed. Plaintiff claims under their title but no possession in them is shown. '
The judgment is reversed and the court below will set aside the'verdict and grant a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Fin. Co. v. Sheffield, 56 Fla. 285 (Fla. 1908)…in is not prima facie evidence^ of the grantor’s title. He must trace his title, back to the ultimate source of title, or to a grantor in possession at or near the time of his grant. Lake v. Hancock, 38 Fla. 53, 20 South. Rep. 811; Dubois v. Holmes, 20 Fla. 834; Florida Southern R. Co. v. Burt, 36 Fla. 497, 18 South. Rep. 581. The certified copies of the deeds from Graham to Lyman, and from Lyman to Van Buskirk should not have been admitted in evidence until the plaintiff made it to appear that the origin…
-
The Fla. S. Ry. Co. v. Burt, 36 Fla. 497 (Fla. 1895)…e of the possession by the grantor of the premises conveyed is not sufficient evidence of title-to warrant a recovery in an action of ejectment, and that the giving of a deed to the premises is no evidence of title in the grantor. Dubois vs. Holmes, 20 Fla. 834; L’Engle vs. Reed, 27 Fla. 345, 9 South. Rep. 213. Neither, in a case of this character, where the reliance is exclusively upon a paper title, is it sufficient to show possession by the grantor at some remote period, but he must have been in possess…1 / 2
-
Jackson v. Julia, 35 Fla. 587 (Fla. 1895)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hartley v. Ferrell, 9 Fla. 374 (Fla. 1861)
- Doe v. Roe, 13 Fla. 602 (Fla. 1869)
- Ricard v. Williams and Others, 7 Wheat. 59 (U.S. 1822)
- Bevans v. United States, 13 Wall. 56 (U.S. 1871)