J. B. WOFFORD AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS,
v.
G. M. DYKES, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed an order sustaining exceptions for impertinence to the appellee's answer in a suit to cancel a cloud on title to a ten-foot right of way. The court held that various defenses pleaded by the appellee, including the statute of limitations and issues regarding the validity of a sheriff's deed, were not wholly irrelevant to the bill and therefore should not have been struck as impertinent.
The court held that the exceptions to the appellee's answer should have been overruled because the pleaded defenses were not wholly irrelevant to the bill. The statute of limitations, prior payment of judgment, statutory defects in the sheriff's deed process, and parol evidence regarding construction of an ambiguous deed are all potentially material defenses that should not have been stricken as impertinent.
“We shall not burden this opinion with all the specific portions of the answer, to which the exceptions were sustained, but after pointing out a few of them, will content ourselves with a reference to the rules laid down by us in Holzendorf v. Terrell, 52 Fla. 525, 42 South. Rep. 584, governing the subject, and the application of which rules require the overruling of all these exceptions, which were objectionable as being too broad, or as directed against defensive matter not wholly irrelevant when read in the light of the averments of the bill.”
Establishes the applicable legal standard for impertinence exceptions under Holzendorf v. Terrell
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants' predecessor in title owned four adjoining lots and executed a deed conveying two of them to an improvement company, reserving in the d…
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 Cloud On Title cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
This is an appeal from an order sustaining exceptions for impertinence to an answer filed by the appellee to a bill, praying the cancellation of a cloud upon title, the claim of appellants’ to a ten-foot right of way upon appellee’s land.
From the bill of complaint it appears that the complainant’s predecessor in title, when the owner of four adjoining lots, executed its deed conveying two of them to an improvement company, and in the deed, immediately following the description of the lots conveyed occurs this sentence: “It is also agreed that by the grantor, that the grantee, its successors and assigns, shall have the free use of an alley running from Tenth (10) Street to Eleventh (11) Street, for a right of way, said alley being the West Ten Feet (W. 10 Ft.) of Lots Eight (8) and Thirteen (13) of Block One Hundred and Five (105) of the City of Miami, together with all and singular the rights, easements, tenements, hereditaments thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, and the reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof.” The improvement company sold a portion of its lots to one of-the appellants, “together with all and singular the rights, tenements and hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining * * and also all the * * estate, posses sion, claim and demand whatsoever at law and in equity, either and both, of the said party of the first part of, in and to the same, and every part and parcel thereof.”
Upon the theory that the “agreement” as to the right of way by the original grantor was a naked promise, the bill asserts-title to the ten-foot strip through a sheriff’s deed based upon a judgment against that grantor. •We shall not burden this opinion with all the specific portions of the answer, to which the exceptions were sustained, but after pointing out a few of them, will content ourselves with a reference to the rules laid down by us-in Holzendorf v. Terrell, 52 Fla. 525, 42 Soiith. Rep. 584, governing the subject, and the application of which rules require the overruling of all these exceptions, which were objectionable as being too broad, or as directed against defensive matter not wholly irrelevant when read in the light of the averments of the bill.
We give a few illustrations: The statute of limitations is not wholly irrelevant, nor is a plea or payment of the judgment prior to the levy of the execution thereunder. Again, we know of no rule rendering impregnable a sheriff’s deed, when the statutory steps of notice have been ignored. Again, the construction of an ambiguous deed may depend upon matters dehors the deed, and pleadings these facts do not necessarily offend the rule as to varying writings by parol.
We must not be understood as deciding finally all the suggestions in this opinion. These questions may be more materially considered when all the facts are fully discussed, and if the defendants unnecessarily bring into the case evidence that may then prove inconsequential, the chancellor has the power to penalize them when he adjusts the costs. See Bush v. Adams, 22 Fla. 177.
The order is reversed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reid v. Barry, 93 Fla. 849 (Fla. 1927)…3; Bellamy v. Bellamy, 6 Fla. 62; Andrew v. Watkins, 26 Fla. 390, 7 So. 876; McNair & Wade Land Co. v. Adams, 54 Fla. 550, 45 So. 492; Black v. Skinner Mfg. Co., 53 Fla. 1088, 43 So. 919; Elliott v. Conner, 63 Fla. 408, 58 So. 241; Wofford v. Dukes, 67 Fla. 118, 64 So. 451; Ansley v. Graham, 73 Fla. 388, 74 So. 505. Fla. Moss Products Co. v. Leesburg, decided at the present term. No particular form of words is necessary to create a trust, and whether one exists is to be ascertained from the intention of t…
-
Cummer Co. v. Estill L. Yager, 75 Fla. 729 (Fla. 1918)…as to have no bearing or influence upon the decisions of the question between the parties to this suit (Trustees Internal Improvement Fund v. Root, 63 Fla. 666, 58 South. Rep. 371; Jones v. Hiller, 65 Fla. 532, 62 South. Rep. 583; Wofford v. Dykes, 67 Fla. 118, 64 South. Rep. 451), and there was therefore error in this ruling. The order overruling the demurrer is affirmed, but the order granting the motion to strike portions of the [*741] answer is reversed for further proceedings not inconsistent with t…
-
Bula E. Croker v. Palm Beach Ests., 94 Fla. 171 (Fla. 1927)…177; Robertson v. Dunn, 45 Fla. 553, 33 South. Rep. 530; Holdendorf v. Terrell, 52 Fla. 525, 42 South. Rep. 584; Law v. Taylor, 63 Fla. 487, 58 South. Rep. 844; Trustees Internal Imp. Fund v. Root, 63 Fla. 666, 58 South. Rep. 371; Woodford v. Dykes, 67 Fla. 118, 64 South. Rep. 451; Boca Grand Investment Co. v. Blanding, 77 Fla. 536, 81 South. Rep. 886. The motion to strike and the exceptions are also very full. An examination of these separately and in detail [*183] reveals no error committed by tbe chanc…
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
- Bush v. Adams, 22 Fla. 177 (Fla. 1886)
- Holzendorf v. Lugenia Terrell, 52 Fla. 525 (Fla. 1906)