J. D. AYERS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
RICHARD B. PULLAN, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment in ejectment because the verdict and judgment failed to comply with statutory requirements. Although the jury found the plaintiff had fee simple title, the judgment did not adequately state the quantity of the estate and description of the land recovered as mandated by statute.
A judgment in ejectment is fatally defective when it does not state the quantity of the estate and give a description of the land recovered as required by Section 1979, Chapter XI of the General Statutes. A verdict finding only that plaintiffs have a fee simple estate does not authorize entry of judgment for recovery of possession.
“A verdict for the plaintiff shall state the quantity of the estate of the plaintiff, and describe the land by its metes and bounds, by the number of the lot or other certain description.”
Establishes the statutory requirement for verdicts in ejectment actions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn an ejectment action, a jury rendered a verdict finding that fee simple title to the West-half of Northwest quarter of Section 29, Township 23 S., 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.
Per Curiam.
A verdict for the plaintiff in an action of ejectment was rendered as follows:
“We, the jury, find the fee simple title to West-half of Northwest quarter of Section 29, Township 23 S., Range 19 E., is vested in the plaintiff.”
The following judgment was entered: “Whereupon it.. is considered that the said Richard B. Pulían and Elizabeth Pulían Haight do recover against the defendant, J. D. Ayers, the possession of the said premises and that they have a writ of possession therefor; it is further considered that the plaintiffs do recover against the defendant, their costs and charges to be taxed by the Clerk of this Court, and they, the said plaintiffs, have execution therefor.”
The defendant took writ of error. Section 1979, Chapter XI, of the General Statutes relating to proceedings in ejectment, provides: “A verdict for the plaintiff shall state the quantity of the estate of the plaintiff, and describe the land by its metes and bounds, by the number of the lot or other certain description.” “The judgment awarding possession shall in like manner state the quantity of the estate and give a description of the land recovered.”
A verdict in ejectment which simply finds that the plaintiffs are entitled to a fee simple estate to the lands described therein, 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.
The judgment is reversed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Whitfield, J. J., concur. Hocker, J., absent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Toombs v. Modesto GIL, 353 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…a description of the land recovered. Section 66.031, Florida Statutes (1975); Lungren v. Brownlie, 22 Fla. 491 (1884); Gibbs v. McCoy, 70 Fla. 245, 70 So. 86 (1915). A judgment which fails to contain the above is fatally defective. Ayers v. Pullan, 68 Fla. 8, 65 So. 869 (1914); Florida Coca-Cola Bottling Company v. Robbins, 81 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1955). The judgment appealed is fatally defective in this regard. Before concluding we wish to point out that because of the developer’s 10 foot error in locating…
Authorities Cited
- Hoodless v. Jernigan, 46 Fla. 213 (Fla. 1903)
- Ropes v. Minshew, 51 Fla. 299 (Fla. 1906)
- Brown v. Hetherington, 65 Fla. 327 (Fla. 1913)