OCALA NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
J. B. MALLOY, DEFENDANT 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.
Malloy brought ejectment against the Ocala Northern Railroad Company and others to recover land possession. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the judgment because Malloy failed to establish a valid chain of title connecting his deeds from the Peninsular Railroad Company to the land originally approved by the General Land Office to the Florida Central & Peninsular Railroad Company, a different corporation.
The judgment must be reversed because Malloy failed to establish a valid chain of title. The evidence was insufficient to prove that the Peninsular Railroad Company was merged into, consolidated with, or succeeded by the Florida Central & Peninsular Railroad Company. In ejectment, a plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title, not the weakness of the defendant's.
“If it be true that the Peninsular Railroad Company was ever merged into, consolidated with or succeeded by the Florida Central & Peninsular Railroad Company, no evidence was introduced to that effect.”
Establishes the critical gap in Malloy's proof—failure to connect the two corporations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMalloy sued for ejectment to recover possession of certain lands and mesne profits. At trial, Malloy traced his title through a chain of deeds back to…
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 Mesne Profits cases and more on FLexlaw
Shackleford, C. J.
J.
B. Malloy brought an action of ejectment against the Ocala Northern Rail road Company, a Corporation; J.
G. Boyd, as Receiver of the' Ocala Northern. Railroad Company, and J.
M. Thomas, trustee in bankruptcy of E.
P. Rentz & Sons, for the recovery of the possession of certain described lands and. for mesne profits. A trial was had, which resulted in a verdict and' judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Twelve errors are assigned, but in view of the conclusion which we have reached it will not be necessary to discuss all of them. We shall confine ourselves to those assignments which attack the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the plaintiff’s title to the land -in controversy. By a chain of deeds the plaintiff traced his title from the Peninsular Railroad Company, a Corporation. The plaintiff then introduced in evidence a certificate from the General Land Office of the United States, showing that the land in question was approved to the Florida Central & Peninsular Railroad Company, a corporation, in 1893, under the Act of Congress, approved May 27th, 1856, entitled “An Act Granting Public Lands in Alternate Sections to the State of Florida and Alabama, to aid in the construction of certain railroads in said States.” It was and is contended by the defendants that, as the plaintiff claimed to derive his title to the land in dispute through successive deeds back to the Peninsular Railroad Company, a corporation, out of which whatever title it had passed by a deed dated the 17th day of November, 1882, which was a different corporation from the Florida Central & Peninsular Company, to which such land had been approved, as above stated, the plaintiff, having failed to .connect his title with any title emanating from such Florida Central & Peninsular Railroad Company, could not recover and that the defendants were entitled to have the jury instructed to return a verdict in their favor, which the trial court refused to do. We are of the opinion that this contention is supported by the evidence adduced and will have to be sustained. If it be true that the Peninsular Railro.ad Company was ever merged into, consolidated with or succeeded by the-Florida Central & Peninsular Railroad Company, no evidence was introduced to that effect. It is true that the plaintiff introduced as a witness in his behalf W.
K. Zewadski and sought to prove by him that the Florida Central & Peninsular Railroad Company and the Peninsular Railroad Company constituted the same railroad company, but the testimony so offered was inadmissible for that purpose and, viewed in the most favorable light possible for the plaintiff, failed to establish such fact, and the motion of the defendants to strike the same should have been granted. We cannot take judicial notice of what is contained in the record of another and distinct case, unless it is made part of the record of the case under consideration. See McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 69, 36 South. Rep. 176; Capital City Bank v. Hilson, 64 Fla. 206, 60 South. Rep. 189, Ann. Cas. 1914 B1211; South Florida Lumber & Supply Co. v. Read, 65 Fla. 61, 61 South. Rep.
125. This being true, we cannot take judicial notice of what is contained in the record in the case of Bloxham v. Florida Cent. & P. R. R. Co., 35 Fla. 625, 17 South. Rep. 902, to which the plaintiff refers in his brief, even if our doing so would aid him in his contention. It is elementary that the plaintiff in ejectment must recover on the -strength of his own title and not on the weakness of his adversary’s. See Ropes v. Minshew, 51 Fla. 299, 41 South. Rep. 538.
It.follows from what we have.said that the judgment mpst be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
Judgment, reversed.. Taylor, Cockrell and Whitfield, J. J., concur;
Hocker, J., took no part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clark v. Cochran, 79 Fla. 788 (Fla. 1920)…3 Fla. 339, 31 South. Rep. 265; Ropes v. Minshew, 51 Fla. 299, 41 South. Rep. 538; Skinner Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 56 Fla. 561, 47 South. Rep. 931; Florida Finance [*792] Co. v. Sheffield, 56 Fla. 285, 48 South. Rep. 42; Ocala Northern R. Co. v. Malloy, 68 Fla. 430, 67 South. Rep. 93; Stewart v. Mathews, 19 Fla. 752. The defendants’ counsel in their brief urge that the plaintiffs “did not deraign a “regular” chain of title from the patent from the United States to Colín Mitchel and others or from Colin Mitche…
-
Baker v. State, 150 Fla. 446 (Fla. 1942)…esel Engine Co., 126 Fla. 808, 172 So. 57; Padgett v. State, 126 Fla. 57, 170 So. 175; Leatherman v. Alta Cliff Co., 114 Fla. 305, 153 So. 845; State ex rel. DuPont-Ball, Inc. v. Livingston, 104 Fla. 33, 139 So. 360; Ocala Northern R. Co. v. Malloy, 68 Fla. 430, 67 So. 93; Capital City Bank v. Hilson, 64 So. 206, 60 So. 189, Ann. Cas. 1914B 1211; McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 69, 36 So. 176. The jury presenting the indictment and the venire out of which the jury was obtained and the one hearing the testimony a…
-
Bunch v. High Springs Bank, 81 Fla. 450 (Fla. 1921)…as denied. The familiar rule in ejectment is that plaintiff must recover, if at all, upon the strength of his title and not upon the weakness of the title of defendant. Clark v. Cochran, 79 Fla. 788, 85 South. Rep. 250; Ocala Nor. R. Co. v. Malloy, 68 Fla. 430, 67 South. Rep. 93; Florida [*453] Finance Co. v. Sheffield, 56 Fla. 285, 48 South. Rep. 42; Skinner Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 56 Fla. 561, 47 South. Rep. 931; Ropes v. Minshew, 51 Fla. 299, 41 South. Rep. 538; Burt v. Florida So. Ry. Co., 43 Fla. 339, 31…
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
- McNish v. State, 47 Fla. 69 (Fla. 1904)
- Bloxham v. Fla. Cent. & Peninsular R.R. Co., 35 Fla. 625 (Fla. 1895)
- Cap. City Bank v. Hilson, 64 Fla. 206 (Fla. 1912)
- S. Fla. Lumber & Supply Co. v. Payton R. Read, 65 Fla. 61 (Fla. 1913)
- Ropes v. Minshew, 51 Fla. 299 (Fla. 1906)
- State v. Wiecking, 65 Fla. 70 (Fla. 1913)