AARON BLUTHENTHAL AND U. L. BICKERT, PARTNERS AS BLUTHENTHAL & BICKERT, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
STONE BROTHERS, 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 affirmed a judgment for the defendants in an ejectment action, finding that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to warrant a verdict in their favor. The plaintiffs claimed title through a sheriff's deed based on a prior judgment, while the defendants claimed title through a deed from the original owner.
No, the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to warrant a verdict in their favor. The evidence did not establish that the grantor was financially embarrassed at the time of the conveyance to his son, nor did the excluded evidence pertain to transactions that could bind the grantee or his successors.
“The evidence signally fails to show that the senior Sheffield was financially embarrassed at the time of the deed to his son, but the embarrassment if any of moment, was occasioned later by a fire that destroyed his liquor business wholly dissociated from the valuable plantation here involved.”
Establishes the lack of evidence regarding the grantor's financial state at the time of the conveyance.
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 via a sheriff's deed from April 1906, stemming from a judgment recorded in January 1904 against P. Sheffield. This judgment a…
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 Sheriff'S Deed cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
This is an action in ejectment in which there was a verdict and judgment for the defendants. The plaintiffs claim title under a sheriff’s deed, executed in April, 1906, upon a judgment of the County Court recorded in the Circuit Court in January, 1904, the judgment being against P. Sheffield upon attachment instituted in November, 1903, while the defendants claim under a deed from the said Sheffield to his son recorded in Jackson county in March, 1903.
The evidence signally fails to show that the senior Sheffield was financially embarrassed at the time of the deed to his son, but the embarrassment if any of moment, was occasioned later by a fire that destroyed his liquor business wholly dissociated from the valuable plantation here involved. Such being the evidence we need not scan with over nicety the numerous charges given and refused. There was no evidence upon which a verdict for the plaintiff was warranted and none of the excluded evidence had reference to transactions' anterior to the deed, or which could bind the grantee therein or his successors.
The verdict of the jury “We the jurors find a verdict in favor of the defendant. W. H. Dekle, foar—,” while in formal, leaves no doubt of its meaning and was sufficient basis for the judgment entered.
Judgment affirmed.
All concur except Taylor, J., absent on account of illness.