C. A. BROWN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
FRANCES HETHERINGTON ET AL., 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.
In this ejectment action, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment awarding an undivided two-thirds interest in land because the judgment failed to comply with statutory requirements mandating specification of the quantity of the estate recovered.
The judgment was defective because it failed to state the quantity of the estate of the plaintiff in the described lands as expressly required by statute. The judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
“In the statutory action of ejectment to recover lands from one holding or claiming adversely, the title as well as the right of possession is put in issue.”
Establishes the scope of what is adjudicated in an ejectment action
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceC. A. Brown held or claimed adverse possession of lands in Polk County, Florida. Plaintiffs brought a statutory action of ejectment against Brown. A r…
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 Right Of Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
This statutory action of ejectment was tried before a referee and a writ of error was taken by the defendant. ' The finding of the referee was in favor of the plaintiffs “and against the defendant, C. A. Brown, for an undivided two-thirds interest in the lands situated and being in the County of Polk and State of Florida,” the description being given. The judgment is as follows: “It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the plaintiffs do have and recover the possession of the lands situated and being in the County of Polk and State of Florida, and more particularly described as follows: an undivided two-thirds interest in the” described lands.
In the statutory action of ejectment to recover lands from one holding or claiming adversely, the title as well as the right of possession is put in issue. The statutory form of the action does not require the quantity of the estate or right of property to be alleged, and the statutory plea of not guilty admits the possession or adverse claim of the defendants and puts “in issue the title of the lands in controversy.” As the pleadings framed under the statute abstractly put in issue the title to the lands and as the title involved may be a fee simple or a less estate, the statute, in order that the title as between the parties may be adjudicated, expressly requires that the verdict or finding and the judgment for the plaintiff “sháll state the quantity of the estate of the plaintiff,” as well as “give a description of the land recovered.” See Hoodless v. Jernigan, 46 Fla. 213, 35 South. Rep. 656; Ropes v. Minshew, 51 Fla. 299, 41 South. Rep. 538.
The finding and judgment in this case do not “state the quantity of the estate of the plaintiff” in the described lands as provided by the statute.
This requires the judgment to be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. The order overruling the motion for a new trial made before the referee was not excepted to, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding has not been considered. See Secs. 1693-4, Gen. Stats, of 1906; Manatee County State Bank v. Wade, 56 Fla. 492, 47 South. Rep. 927.
The judgment is reversed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hooker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gibbs v. McCoy, 70 Fla. 245 (Fla. 1915)…lands, describing them. But neither the finding nor the judgment states “the quantity of the estate of the plaintiff” as is mandatorily required by the statute. Sec. 1970 Gen. Stats. of 1906; Sec. 1970 Compiled Laws Ann. 1914; Brown v. Hetherington, 65 Fla. 327, 61 South. Rep. 638; Hoodless v. Jernigan, 46 Fla. 213, 35 South. Rep. 656; Lungren v. Brownlie, 22 Fla. 491; Neal v. Spooner, 20 Fla. 38. Because of the failure of the finding and judgment to “state the quantity of the estate of the plaintiff” as…
-
Ayers v. Pullan, 68 Fla. 8 (Fla. 1914)…herein, does not find the right of possession in the plaintiffs, nor does it authorize the entry in behalf of plaintiffs of a judgment for recovery of possession' of the land. Ropes v. Minshew, 51 Fla. 299, 41 South. Rep. 538. Brown v. Hetherington, 65 Fla. 327. A judgment in ejectment for the plaintiff is fatally defective which does not state the quantity of the estate and give a description of the land recovered as required by the quoted statute. Hoodless v. Jernigan, 46 Fla. 213, 35 South. Rep. 656.…
Authorities Cited
- Hoodless v. Jernigan, 46 Fla. 213 (Fla. 1903)
- Ropes v. Minshew, 51 Fla. 299 (Fla. 1906)
- Manatee Cnty. State Bank v. Wade, 56 Fla. 492 (Fla. 1908)