J. W. BLACK, W. A. MCLEOD AND L. A. MCDAVID, APPELLANTS,
v.
SKINNER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, A CORPORATION, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a circuit court decree invalidating deeds executed by J. W. Black and W. A. McLeod purporting to convey fractional section one in Santa Rosa County, finding that Black had already conveyed the land to D. F. Sullivan in an unrecorded 1879 deed, leaving him with no title to convey in 1902.
The appellants have no valid title to the disputed land. The 1879 deed from Black to Sullivan conveyed all the land described therein, including the land in controversy. Black therefore had no title to convey in 1902, and the subsequent deeds from Black to McLeod and from McLeod to McDavid conveyed no valid title to the appellants.
“the deed of May 8, 1879, from J. W. Black to D. F. Sullivan conveyed all the land therein described, and the land in controversy in this cause was included in that deed; therefore J. W. Black had no title to convey to W. A. McLeod in 1902”
Establishes the core holding that Black's prior complete conveyance in 1879 left him without title to convey in 1902
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ. W. Black executed a deed dated May 8, 1879, to D. F. Sullivan conveying land in fractional section one, township three north, range thirty-one west…
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 Deed Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.:
This appeal is from a decree of the circuit court for Santa Rosa county adjudging certain deeds of conveyance executed by J. W. Black, one of the appellants, to W. A. McLeod, another appellant, and by W. A. McLeod to the appellant, L. A. McDavid, in so far as they purport to convey all of fractional section one, township three north, range thirty-one west, land situated in Santa Rosa county, Florida, to be invalid as against the appellee and clouds upon its title to said land, and declaring the appellee’s title to be valid and subsisting as against the appellants, and ordering said deeds to be canceled of record in so far as they affect said land. The appellee claims title by a deed of conveyance of May 8, 1879, from J. W. Black, one of the appel lants, to D. F. Sullivan, and by mesne conveyances to itself. The appellant, L. A. McDavid, claims title by deed of August 19, 1902, from the appellant, J. W. Black, to the appellant, W. A.'McLeod, and by deed from W. A. McLeod to the appellant, L. A. McDavid.
In the case of J. W. Black, W. A. McLeod and D. T. Williams, appellants, v. Skinner Manufacturing Company, appellee, this day filed, the court held that the deed of May 8, 1879, from J. W. Black to D. F. Sullivan conveyed all the land therein described, and the land in controversy in this cause was included in that deed; therefore J. W. Black had no title to convey to W. A. McLeod in 1902. The deed of May 8, 1879, from J. W. Black to D. F. Sullivan was not. recorded in Santa Rosa county, but it was held in the case above referred to that in the deed of August 19, 1902, from J. W. Black to W. A. McLeod in trust, which also includes the land in question here, the latter was not a purchaser for a valuable consideration, therefore the failure to record the deed of May 8, 1879, from J. W. Black tO' D. F. Sullivan did not make the deed of August 19th, 1902, from J. W-Black to W. A. McLeod, effectual. The deed from W. A. McLeod,, trustee, to L. A. McDavid was a quit claim deed and conveyed no better title than McLeod received from Black. The result is that as against the appellee the appellants have no title and no-error appears in the decree.
Let the decree be affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Cockrell, J., concur;
Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reid v. Barry, 93 Fla. 849 (Fla. 1927)…racter of estate and the property attempted to be conveyed, and to so construe the instrument as, if possible, to effectuate such intent. 8 R. C. L. 1037-8; 18 C. J. 253, et seq; Sanders v. Ransom, 37 Fla. 457, 20 So. 530; Black v. Skinner Mfg. Co., 53 Fla. 1088, 1090, 43 So. 919; Ausley v. Graham, 73 Fla. 388, 74 So. 505. Appellee contends, however, that even though the absence of the* word “heirs” from the deed made it ineffective to convey a fee simple estate, yet the covenants for quiet enjoyment and o…1 / 2
-
Ansley v. Graham, 73 Fla. 388 (Fla. 1917)…457; Hall v. Eastman, Gardner & Co., Miss. 43 South. Rep. 2; Henderson v. Mack, 82 Ky. 379; Langley v. Owens, 52 Fla. 302, 42 South. Rep. 457.” “A deed should be construed to make every part of it effective if possible.” Black v. Skinner Mfg. Co., 53 Fla. 1088, 43 South. Rep. 922. We cannot see that there is such a repugnance or contradiction in this deed as requires any part of it to be ig [*399] norecl. There is some slight ambiguity, but it is not such as is incapable of satisfactory elucidation. The…
-
Fryer v. Dane Morgan, 714 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…, Fla. Stat. (1995). The law in Florida has always been that an unrecorded deed does not affect its validity as between the parties and their privies. See Rabinow-itz v. Keefer, 100 Fla. 1723, 1729,132 So. 297, 299 (1931); Black v. Skinner Mfg. Co., 53 Fla. 1088, 43 So. 922, 922-23 (1907); Sweat v. Yates, 463 So. 2d 306, 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Hensel v. Aurilio, 417 So. 2d 1035, 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). However, under the plain language of section 695.01(1), an unrecorded deed is not good or effectual in…