FRANK SMITH, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
CHARLES KLAY AND LUCINDA KLAY, HIS WIFE, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a jury verdict for plaintiffs claiming title to land, holding that the trial court erred by directing the jury to find for plaintiffs when there was a disputed factual question about whether defendant Smith had fully paid for the property and thus held adverse possession against the grantors.
The trial court erred in directing the jury to find for plaintiffs. The question of whether Smith fully paid the purchase price was for the jury to determine. If Smith paid in full, his possession was adverse to the vendors' title, and the deed to plaintiffs would be ineffectual to convey title against him. If Smith did not pay in full, his possession was not adverse, and the deed would convey valid title.
“It was for the jury to pass upon this conflict. If the question had been left to the jury, as it should have been, and they had arrived at the conclusion that Smith had not paid the full purchase price, then the law is that his possession was not adverse to the title of his vendors and the deed from such vendors to the plaintiffs in such event would have been effectual to convey title to them as against Smith.”
Establishes that the payment question was a jury question and that the outcome depends on whether Smith's possession was adverse or not
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs claimed title to land under a deed executed and delivered by grantors who were not in actual possession of the property at the time of conv…
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 Actual Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
Taylor, C. J.
(after stating the facts). — The court below erred in charging the jury affirmatively to find for the plaintiffs. The undisputed facts in proof were that the deed of conveyance to the plaintiffs, under which alone they claimed any right in or title to the land in dispute, was executed and delivered when the grantors therein were not in the actual possession of the land in controversy, but when the defendant Smith was in the actual possession thereof claiming title thereto as former purchaser thereof. There was conflict in the proofs as to whether Smith had fully paid the agreed purchase price for the land.
It was for the jury to pass upon this conflict. If the question had been left to the jury, as it should have been, and they had arrived at the conclusion that Smith had not paid the full purchase price, then the law is that his possession was not adverse to the title of his vendors and the deed from such vendors to the plaintiffs in such event would have been effectual to convey title to them as against Smith. Gamble v. Hamilton and House, 31 Fla. 401, 12 South Rep.
229. But if, on the other hand, the jury had found from the conflicting evidence that Smith had in fact fully paid the agreed purchase price of the land, then in such event his admitted possession would have been adverse in law to the title of his vendors, and then, in such event, the deed from the heirs of his vendors made to the plaintiffs while he was in such adverse possession, would have been ineffectual to convey to them any such title as would have sustained a recovery in their favor in ejectment as against Smith. And in the latter event such deed, if executed and delivered while Smith was in the adverse possession of the land, was not enough to drive him to the exhibition of any other title than his actual adverse possession of the land at the time of the execution of such deed, and if the jury believed from the evidence that the defendant Smith was in the actual adverse possession of the land at the time of the execution and delivery of such deed to the plaintiffs, their verdict should have been in favor of the de fendant. Dubois v. Holmes, 20 Fla. 834; L’Engle v. Reed, 27 Fla. 345, 9 South. Rep. 213; Fla. So. Ry. Co. v. Burt, 36 Fla. 497, 18 South. Rep. 581.
As this disposes of the whole case, there is no necessity to notice other errors assigned. For the error adjudged the judgment of the court below is reversed and a new trial ordered, the cost of the appellate proceeding to be taxed against the defendants in error. Hocker and Shackleford, JJ., concur. Carter, P. J., and Maxwell and Cockrell, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gunn v. City of Jacksonville, 67 Fla. 40 (Fla. 1914)…inghouse, C. K. & Co., 214 U. S. 249, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 619; Delk v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 220 U. S. 580, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 617; King v. Cooney-Eckstein, 66 Fla. 246, 63 South. Rep. 659; Starks v. Sawyer, 56 Fla. 596, 47 South. 513; Smith v. Klay, 47 Fla. 216, 36 South. Rep. 54; Hillsborough Grocery Co. v. Leman, 51 Fla. 203, 40 South. Rep. 680; Florala Saw Mill Co. v. Smith, 55 Fla. 447, 46 South. Rep. 332; German-American Lumber Co. v. Brock, 55 Fla. 577, 46 South. Rep. 749; McKinnon v. Johnson, 57 Fla…
-
Malsby v. Gamble, 61 Fla. 310 (Fla. 1911)
-
The Skinner Mfg. Co. v. Lum Wright, 56 Fla. 561 (Fla. 1908)…. Where the plaintiff undertake to show title in himself, he must deraign title from an original Source or from one having possession and a right to convey the title. Florida Southern Ry. Co. v. Burt, 36 Fla. 497, 18 South. Rep. 581; Smith v. Klay, 47 Fla. 216, 36 South. Rep. 54; Florida Finance Co. v. Sheffield, decided this term. The plaintiff corporation failed to show title in itself. The evidence as to prior possession was conflicting, and in settling the conflict in favor of the defendant the findi…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- L'Engle v. Reed, 27 Fla. 345 (Fla. 1891)
- The Fla. S. Ry. Co. v. Burt, 36 Fla. 497 (Fla. 1895)
- Gamble v. Hamilton, 31 Fla. 401 (Fla. 1893)
- Dubois v. Amos Holmes, 20 Fla. 834 (Fla. 1884)