MARY E. DAVIS, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
J. H. DRUMMOND, 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.
In this forcible entry and detainer action, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a directed verdict for the defendant, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiffs who had peacefully entered unoccupied land and begun construction before being forcibly ousted by the defendant.
The evidence was sufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiffs because it tended to show peaceful possession by the plaintiffs and a forcible ouster by the defendant. A directed verdict should not be entered when the evidence tends to prove the issues and a verdict for the plaintiff would not be unlawful.
“These facts tended to show a peaceful possession and a forcible ouster from at least a portion of the land, and the evidence tends to show the plaintiffs intended and by running lines and a wire attempted to occupy and possess the entire lot in controversy, there being nothing to indicate that the defendant had been in possession or claimed any right or interest in the land at or prior to the plaintiff's peaceful entry.”
Establishes the factual basis for reversal - the evidence supported the plaintiffs' claim of peaceful possession and forcible removal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs peacefully entered unoccupied land early in the morning, cleared bushes, and began constructing a house. The defendant appeared later t…
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 Forcible Entry And Detainer cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
Mary E. Davis and others brought an action of forcible entry and detainer against Drummond. The court directed a verdict for the defendant, on which a judgment for defendant was rendered, and the plaintiffs took writ of error. The evidence shows that the lands were unoccupied; that early in the morning the plaintiffs entered upon a part of the land, cleared away the growing bushes, and had partially constructed a house thereon when the defendant appeared during the same morning with firearms and required the parties at work in constructing the house to desist, whereupon the defendant tore down the partially-constructed house, and enclosed the premises by a substantial fence. There is also evidence that “at or about the time” the plaintiffs “started to put a house there,” ‘‘the boundaries of the land” were-run out, and also that “either on the day or the day before” the plaintiffs began the house building, a single wire was placed “practically around the land.” In addition to this there is at least some evidence of good faith on the part of the plaintiffs in entering upon the land. These facts tended to show a peaceful possession and a forcible ouster from at least a portion of the land, and the evidence tends to show the plaintiffs intended and by running lines and a wire attempted to occupy and possess the entire lot in controversy, there being nothing to indicate that the defendant had been in possession or claimed any right or interest in the land at or prior to the plaintiff’s peaceful entry. This being so, it was error to direct a verdict “that the defendant did not * * * forcibly enter upon the real estate in the complaint mentioned and turn the plaintiffs out of the possession thereof.” See Greeley v. Spratt, 19 Fla. 644; 19 Cyc. 1132.
A verdict for the defendant should not be directed when the evidence tends to prove the issues in the case and a verdict for the plaintiff on the evidence would not be unlawful. See Gunn v. City of Jacksonville, 67 Fla. 40, 64 South. Rep. 435; Hillsborough Grocery Co. v. Leman, 51 Fla. 203, 40 South. Rep. 680; Poore v. Star Piano Co., decided at this term. In actions for forcible entry, title deeds may be put in evidence when the possession of a part of the land is shown, for the purpose of showing the boundaries or the extent of the possession claimed. Walls v. Endel, 17 Fla. 478.
The judgment is reversed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nell Gravette v. Turner, 77 Fla. 311 (Fla. 1919)…o directing a verdict on the evidence may become, in many cases, one of delicacy, and it should be cautiously exercised. Gunn v. City of Jacksonville, supra; Logan Coal & Supply Co. v. Hasty, 68 Fla. 539, 67 South. Rep. 72; [*316] Davis v. Drummond, 68 Fla. 471, 67 South. Rep. 99; Poore v. Starr Piano Co., 68 Fla. 425, 67 South. Rep. 99; King v. Cooney-Eckstein Co., 68 Fla. 246, 63 South. Rep. 659; Hammond v. Jacksonville Electric Co., 66 Fla. 145, 63 South. Rep. 709; Starks v. Sawyer, 56 Fla. 596, 47 Sout…
-
Smith v. Smith, 144 Fla. 500 (Fla. 1940)…rence to directing a verdict on the evidence may become, in many cases, one of delicacy, and it should be cautiously exercised. Gunn v. City of Jacksonville, supra; Logan Coal & Supply Co. v. Hasty, 68 Fla. 539, 67 South. Rep. 72; Davis v. Drummond, 68 Fla. 471, 67 South. Rep. 99; Poore v. Starr Piano Co., 68 Fla. 425, 67 South. Rep. 99; King v. Cooney-Eckstein Co., 66 Fla. 246, 63 South. Rep. 659; Hammond v. Jacksonville Electric Co., 66 Fla. 145, 63 South. Rep. 709; Starks v. Sawyer, 56 Fla. 596, 47 Sout…
-
Duval Laundry Co., Inc. v. Reif, 130 Fla. 276 (Fla. 1937)…rence.to directing a verdict on the evidence may become, in many cases, one of delicacy, and it should be cautiously exercised. Gunn v. City of Jacksonville, supra; Logan Coal & Supply Co. v. Hasty, 68 Fla. 539, 67 South. Rep. 72; Davis v. Drummond, 68 Fla. 471, 67 South. Rep. 99; Poore v. Starr Piano Co., 68 Fla. 425, 67 South. Rep. 99; King v. Cooney-Eckstein Co., 66 Fla. 246, 63 South. Rep. 659; Hammond v. Jacksonville Electric Co., 66 Fla. 145, 63 South. Rep. 709; Starks v. Sawyer, 56 Fla. 596, 47 Sout…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gunn v. City of Jacksonville, 67 Fla. 40 (Fla. 1914)
- The Hillsborough Grocery Co. v. Leman, 51 Fla. 203 (Fla. 1906)
- Josiah T. Walls v. Endel, 17 Fla. 478 (Fla. 1880)
- Greeley v. Leonidas W. Spratt, 19 Fla. 644 (Fla. 1883)