WILLIAM D. MCRAE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
MATTIE F. PRESTON, DEFENDANT 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.
In an ejectment action for a town lot in Lakeland, Florida, the plaintiff recovered a judgment with mesne profits. The defendant appealed via writ of error, challenging the verdict. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, finding that the plaintiff's undisputed possession under a recorded deed from 1885-1897 prevailed over the defendant's void tax deed and sheriff's deed.
The plaintiff's title was properly upheld. The tax deed was void because it was issued to the plaintiff's agent, placing him in a trust relation, thereby operating as a redemption from the tax sale rather than a conveyance. The sheriff's deed was also properly excluded as it was based on an attachment suit without personal service or seizure of the res. The judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed.
“The tax deed was void because issued to plaintiff's agent in the matter of this very property under such circumstances as to make him stand in a trust relation and cause the tax deed to him to operate not as a conveyance of the title but as a redemption from the tax sale.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for invalidating the tax deed based on the trust relation principle.
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 held undisputed possession of a town lot in Lakeland under a recorded deed from 1885 to 1897. The defendant claimed title through a tax …
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 Mesne Profits cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
— This was an action of ejectment for a town lot in Lakeland, Florida; there was verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, with mesne profits assessed at nine' hundred dollars, and the defendant sued out this writ of error. There is grave doubt in the minds of the court as to whether the bill of exceptions was so signed and certified as properly and legally to present any question for the court’s decision, but the bill is physically here and as an examination of it discloses no reversible error, we have concluded it would be more satisfactory to all parties to dispose of the case upon the merits, rather than to enter into a discussion of the-validity of the bill of exceptions.
We shall not undertake, however, to-lengthen unduly this opinion by answering seriatim-the thirty odd assignments of error, but.shall state generally that upon the whole evidence under the pleadings no other result was legally permissible.
The plaintiff’s case rested upon undisputed possession under a recorded deed from 1885 to 1897; the defendant claimed under a tax deed and a sheriff’s deed under which h$ secured title within 'seven years of the institution of this action. The tax deed was void because issued to plaintiff’s agent in the matter of this very property under such circumstances as to make him stand in a trust relation and cause the -tax deed to him to operate not as a conveyance of the title but as a redemption from the tax sale. The sheriff’s deed was based on an attachment suit in the county court of Polk county in which -there was no-personal service, the defendant being a non-resident and thei^ was no seizure of the res. and both deeds were properly excluded.
There was no error in refusing evidence as to betterments.- The allowance of this to-the unsuccessful defendant is under a special statutory proceeding-and is not permitted under the general issue.
Agency vel non cannot usually be proved by the extra judicial statement of the supposed agent, but this rule does not operate to exclude an admission against interest, as in the instant case an admission by one who purchases a tax deed that he is the agent of the owner of the land suffered to be sold for taxes.
The land being held adversely after 1897, the action was properly brought in the name of Mrs. Preston, the then holder of title; it is no defense that an unrecorded deed may have been executed since that time to another who actively participated in the trial for her side. Coogler v. Rogers, 25 Fla. 853, 7 South. Rep. 391.
These rather general remarks cover substantially all the assignments that merit discussion.
The judgment is affirmed. .
Shackleford, C. J., and Whitfield, J., concur;
Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gibbs v. McCoy, 70 Fla. 245 (Fla. 1915)…f the land, was good as between the parties to the conveyances, and that a recovery in the name of the grantors will inure to the benefit of those claiming under such grantors. See Coogler v. Rogers, 23 Fla. 853, 7 South. Rep. 391; McRae v. Preston, 54 Fla. 190, 44 South. Rep. 946; Jones v. Allen, 63 Fla. 204, text 207, 58 South. Rep. 784; Sherlock v. Varn, 64 Fla. 447, 59 South. Rep. 953. The amendment did not make a new action, since the real parties in interest and the essential elements of the controve…
-
Seddon v. Harpster, 438 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…s purely statutory, Brown v. Johns, 312 So. 2d 526, 527 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Bailey v. Bailey, 114 So. 2d 804, 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959), and a claim for betterment compensation in an answer to a complaint for ejectment is a nullity. McRae v. Preston, 54 Fla. 190, 44 So. 946 (1907). The purpose of the betterment statute is to provide an efficient and effective means by which the issues available thereunder can be presented within a reasonable period of time (60 days) after final judgment in a suit evicting a…
-
Haynes v. Woodward, 154 Fla. 111 (Fla. 1944)…s of Woodward. The errors assigned and argued all relate to pleadings and procedure and do not touch the merits of the cause. We do not think they were harmful and that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed on authority of McRae v. Preston, 54 Fla. 190, 44 So. 946. Affirmed. BUFORD, C. J., CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.…
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
- Coogler v. Rogers, 25 Fla. 853 (Fla. 1889)