THE SKINNER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
LUM WRIGHT, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's judgment for the defendant in an ejectment action. The plaintiff failed to prove title or prior possession of the disputed real estate, which is a requirement to recover in an ejectment suit.
No, the plaintiff failed to establish title or prior possession. Therefore, the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proof required to recover in an ejectment action.
“In an action of ejectment the plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of the title of the defendant.”
This quote establishes the fundamental burden of proof for a plaintiff in an ejectment case.
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, Skinner Manufacturing Company, sued the defendant, Lum Wright, in ejectment to recover real estate and mesne profits. The plaintiff att…
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 Statute Of Uses cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
The plaintiff in error brought an action of ejectment in the statutory form against the defendant in error to recover the possession of real estate and also mesne profits. The plea was not guilty. Judgment was rendered for the defendant. On writ of error the plaintiff assigns as errors the rejection of testimony, the giving of charges and the denial of a motion for new trial.
At the trial the plaintiff undertook to deraign title to the land by deeds of conveyance beginning with one Frank Smith in 1871. It was not shown that Smith was in possession of the land' or that h*e had a right to> the possession when the deed of conveyance by him was executed. Nor was it shown that any of the predecessors in title of the plaintiff were in possession of the land at or about the time deeds of conveyance of the land were made by them. The plaintiff did not show such adverse possession with or without color of title for the requisite period to ripen into title.
The testimony as to whether the defendant went into possession acknowledging the title of the plaintiff is conflicting and the jury settled the conflict adversely to the plaintiff.
In this State a conveyance of the legal title to land is made by -the execution of a deed under the statute of frauds and by the operation upon such deed of the statute of uses, both of which statutes were first enacted by the Territorial Council in 1828, and are brought forward as sections 2448 and 2455, the General Statutes. Under those statutes where a deed of conveyance duly executed by one. having title and possession is delivered, the legal title to the land sufficiently identified therein passes. Title may be acquired by continued adverse possession and occupation for the period and under the circumstances stated in the statute. See sections 172a, 1722, General Statutes.
In an action of ejectment the plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of the title of the defendant. He cannot recover even as against one without title unless he shows title or prior possession. Burt v. Florida Southern Ry. Co., 43 Fla. 339, 31 South. Rep. 265.
To recover possession of land in an action of ejectment against one in actual possession, the plaintiff should show title in himself and a right -to the possession, or that he had been in actual bona ñde possession of the land and was ousted by the defendant. Harris v. Butler, 52 Fla. 253, 42 South. Rep. 186, and authorities cited.
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 finding of the jury is not clearly against the evidence. The failure of the plaintiff to prove title or prove possession was not caused by-the rejection of the ’testimony complained of by the charges given, therefore, it is not necessary to consider in detail the errors assigned. There was no error in denying the motion for new trial and the judgment is affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Cockrell, J., concur;
Taylor, FIocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Johnson v. Wilhelmina Reynolds, 97 Fla. 591 (Fla. 1929)…e defendant cannot be considered. In ejectment the plaintiff must recover if at all upon the strength of his own title and not upon the weakness of that of the defendant. Ropes v. Minshew, 51 Fla. 299, 41 So. R. 538; The Skinner Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 56 Fla. 561, 47 So. R. 931; Demps v. Hogan, 57 Fla. 60, 48 So. R. 998. The presumption obtains that the verdict and judgment were correct in so far as there was sufficient evidence to support the former, and if all the evidence which was adduced at the trial i…
-
Phillips v. Lowenstein, 91 Fla. 89 (Fla. 1926)…tion of ejectment against one in actual possession, the plaintiff should show title in himself and a right to the possession, or that he had been in actual bnoa fide possession of the land and was ousted by the defendant. Skinner Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 56 Fla. 561, 47 South. Rep. 931; Bunch v. High Springs Bank, 81 Fla. 450, 89 South. Rep. 121; Clark 1. Cochran, 79 Fla. 788, 85 South. Rep. 250; Hartley v. Ferrell, 9 Fla. 374. Married women can legally contract and convey property only as provided by law, and…
-
Bass v. Ramos, 58 Fla. 161 (Fla. 1909)…esent right to the possession when the action was begun. Jones v. Lofton, 16 Fla. 189; Hartley v. Ferrell, 9 Fla. 374; Winn v. Coggins, 53 Fla. 327, 42 South. Rep. 897; Harris v. Butler, 52 Fla. 253, and authorities cited; Skinner Mfg Co. v. Wright, 56 Fla. 561, 47 South. Rep. 931; L’Engle v. Reed, 27 Fla. 345, 9 South. Rep. 213; Barco v. Fennell, 24 Fla. 378, 5 South. Rep. 9; Carn v. Haisley, 22 Fla. 317. If the character of the land is such that continued, actual possession is apparently not allowed by…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Burt v. The Fla. S. Ry. Co., 43 Fla. 339 (Fla. 1901)
- The Fla. S. Ry. Co. v. Burt, 36 Fla. 497 (Fla. 1895)
- Harris v. Butler, 52 Fla. 253 (Fla. 1906)
- Smith v. Klay, 47 Fla. 216 (Fla. 1904)