HENRY WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JOHN L. JONES AND WILLIAM WISE, 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.
An ejectment action to recover real property in Arcadia, Florida was decided in favor of the defendants below based on a tax deed. The plaintiff appealed, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, finding the abstract of the record insufficient to demonstrate error by the trial court.
The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court because the abstract of the record was insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review. The court held that a tax deed must be fully copied into the abstract for the appellate court to assess whether the trial judge's ruling admitting it was proper.
“It is necessary for an abstract to contain "sufficient statement of the evidence to show the propriety or impropriety of the rulings complained of, or to show that the matters complained of are true, otherwise this court is not justified in saying the court below erred."”
Establishes the standard for what an abstract must contain for appellate review
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff brought an ejectment action in DeSoto County Circuit Court on October 18, 1904, to recover Block 16 of Daughtry's Addition to Arcadia. I…
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 Tax Deed Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
An action of ejectment was brought by plaintiff in error in the Circuit Court of DeSoto county on the 18th of October, 1904, against defendants in error to recover Block 16 Daughtry’s Addition to the town of Arcadia. Judgment for defendants below, and writ of error by plaintiff. The case is here on abstracts of the record under the rule in force when the writ of error was sued out, and there is no exception to the abstract.
It was admitted on the trial that plaintiff below was the owner of the legal title to the property except as he may have been divested by tax title held by defendant Jones. By admission Wise was a tenant of Jones. The defendants introduced a tax deed to Jones dated September 21st, 1900, based on Certificate No. 2058 which the abstract states was “in due form.” This deed was objected to because the property in question was not therein described with sufficient particularity, it not stating the county or State in which it is located, and because it was immaterial and irrelevant. This objection was overruled, and this ruling is assigned as error. No copy of the tax deed is set out in the abstract, though it is stated to be “in due form.” To be “in due form” it must have followed the form laid down in the statutes, and from an examina-, tion of the forms we do not see how it could happen that the tax deed did not somewhere identify the county and State. This kind of an abstract does not conform to the letter or spirit of our rules providing for abstracts and bills of exceptions. It is necessary for an abstract to contain “sufficient statement of the evidence to show the propriety or impropriety of the rulings complained of, or to show that the matters complained of are true, otherwise this court is not justified in saying the court below erred.” Silver Springs O. & G.
R. Co. v. VanNess, 45 Fla. 559, 34 South. Rep.
884. To enable us to understand the ruling of the court made upon a tax deed admitted to be “in due form” the deed should have been copied in the abstract of the record. The same deficiency in the abstract is shown as to all the other assignments of error. We cannot from the meagerness of the facts stated determine affirmatively that the judge below erred. The presumption is that he ruled correctly, and this presumption prevails until the contrary is made affirmatively to appear. It is, therefore, considered that the judgment appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur. Shackleford, C. J., and Cockrell, and Whitfield, JJ., concur in the opinion.