E. B. DRUMRIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
ARCHIE AITCHISON, 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.
Drumright sought to redeem mortgaged land through a bill in equity, claiming that the defendant's predecessors in title failed to make all interested parties defendants in the foreclosure proceedings. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the bill, holding that Drumright's deed from Groover's heir was inoperative against defendants who were in adverse possession, and that the long delay in seeking redemption without excuse or explanation defeated any claim.
The court held that Drumright had no right to redeem because: (1) if the defendants were in adverse possession under claim of right at the time Drumright took his deed, the deed was inoperative against them; and (2) the long delay in seeking redemption, unexplained and unexcused, indicated acquiescence in the defendants' title and right to the land.
“If the defendants were adversely occupying the premises under claim of right when Drumright took his deed from Groover's heir, the deed is inoperative as against them.”
Establishes that adverse possession by the defendants defeated Drumright's claim even if there were defects in the foreclosure proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1881, Alfred Allen and Arthur C. Jackson owned land and mortgaged it to Benjamin P. Barnard. In 1886, Allen conveyed the land to Frederick Groover …
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 Chain Of Title cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
The bill seeking to redeem lands from a mortgage alleges that in 1881 Alfred Allen and Arthur C. Jackson, being seized in fee simple of described land, mortgaged it to Benjamin P. Barnard; that in 1886 Alfred Allen conveyed the land to Frederick Groover. It does not appear that Jackson had conveyed his interest to Allen. Subsequently Barnard foreclosed the mort gage, but did not make Groover a party to the foreclosure proceedings. At the foreclosure sale in 1889 Barnard purchased the land and subsequently conveyed it. In 1912 the heir of Frederick Groover conveyed to Drum-right the title received from Allen before the mortgage was foreclosed, and Drumright asks to be decreed a right to redeem from the defendants, appellees here, as the successors in title to Barnard, who was the mortgagee and who bought at the foreclosure sale. The court dismissed the bill and complainant appealed.
The bill alleges that neither of .the defendants, appellees here, “have been in actual possession and control of the premises, and adversely holding the same under their conveyances, and adversely to the interests of the said Frederick Groover; that they were charged by law with notice of the said conveyances to the said Frederick Groover duly made and filed of record as hereinbefore set forth, and that their chain of title traces through the said Alfred Allen and Arthur C. Jackson, whose conveyances vested title in the said Frederick Groover, and that the rights and interests of the said Frederick Groover have not been barred herein.”
The bill further alleges that the defendants “have been occupying said premises for a number of years, enjoying the use and rents thereof which has been of great value;” and an accounting is prayed.
If the defendants were adversely occupying the premises under claim of right when Drumright took his deed from Groover’s heir, the deed is inoperative as against them. Besides this the long delay in asking to redeem is not explained or excused; no fiduciary relation or duty is shown as against Barnard or his successors in title and the allegations of the bill indicate an ac quiescence in the defendants’ title and right to the lands relieved of the original mortgage lien.
The decree is affirmed.'
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hooker, J. J., concur.