ROBERT A. BACON, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF R. A. MILLS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
LILLIE E. FEIGEL, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, REMY A. FEIGEL, 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.
In this ejectment action, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a directed verdict for the defendant because the trial court improperly excluded certified copies of deeds that should have been admitted under the Florida Constitution as prima facie evidence when the originals were not in the plaintiff's possession or control.
The trial court erred in excluding the certified copies of the deeds. Under Article XVI, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution, certified copies of recorded deeds must be admitted as prima facie evidence of their execution when it appears the originals are not within the party's custody or control. The judgment for the defendant must therefore be reversed.
“A certified copy of the record of any deed or mortgage that has been or shall be duly recorded according to law shall be admitted as prima facie evidence thereof, and of its due execution with like effect as the original -duly proved; provided, it be made to appear that the original is not within the custody or control of the party offering such copy.”
This constitutional provision establishes the rule that certified copies are admissible as prima facie evidence when originals are not in the offering party's custody or control.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR.A. Mills claimed title to land through a chain of deeds: from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund to Elam B. Carlton, from Carlton to R.A.…
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 Ejectment cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
To-a statutory declaration in an action of ejectment the defendant pleaded not guilty. At tlie trial the plaintiff, R. A. Mills, claimed title to the land in controversy through the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State, Elam B. Carlton and R. A. Bacon; and he testified that he did not have in his possession or control the original deed of conveyance from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State, to Elam B. Carlton, or the original deed of conveyance from Carlton to Bacon. Certified copies of these deeds were excluded. A deed of conveyance of the property from Bacon to Mills Avas excluded on the ground that title had not been traced from an original source to one in possession, the plaintiff, Mills, having testified-that the defendants were in possession of the land when he took the deed of conveyance from Bacon. The court directed a verdict for the defendant and rendered judgment thereon. Writ of error was taken by the plaintiff.
As the defendant was in possession of the land when Mills took his conveyance from Bacon, he could bring ejectment in the name of Bacon for his own use. Gibbs v. McCoy, 70 Fla. 245, 70 South. Rep. 86; Coogler v. Rodgers, 25 Fla. 853, 7 South. Rep. 391.
Section 21, Article XVI of the Constitution, is as follows :
, “Deeds and mortgages Avhich have been proved for record and recorded according to laAv shall be taken as prima facie evidence in the courts in this State without requiring proof of the execution. A certified copy of the record of any deed or mortgage that has been or shall be duly recorded according to law shall be admitted as prima facie evidence thereof, and of its due execution with like effect as the original -duly proved; provided, it be made to appear that the original is not within the custody or control of the party offering such copy.”
The party offering the cretified copy of the deeds of conveyance in this case was the real party in interest as plaintiff; and as it was made to appear the originals were not in his possession or control, the certified copies should have been admitted in evidence pursuant to the express provision of the Constitution.
Judgment reversed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McKenna v. State, 119 Fla. 576 (Fla. 1934)…bs v. State, 77 Fla. 228, 81 So. 444; Witt v. State, 80 Fla. 38, 85 So. 249; Cason v. State, 86 Fla. 276, 97 So. 720; Stanley v. State, 93 Fla. 372, 112 So. 73; Peninsular Naval Stores v. Mathers, 96 Fla. 620, 119 So. 333.” See also Miller v. State, 76 Fla. 581, 80 Sou. 314; and Merchants Transportation Co. v. Daniel, 109 Fla. 447, 147 Sou. 897. In the instant case the court charged the jury amongst other things, as follows: “To the indictment the defendant has plead not guilty and this plea of the defen…
-
Atl. Land & Improvement Co. & T. H. Crawford v. Lee, 93 Fla. 579 (Fla. 1927)…tody or control of the party, and that he connot use the copy in any case until it has been made to appear affirmatively that the original is not in his custody or control. Bell v. Kendrick, 25 Fla. 778, text 790, 6 South. Rep. 868; Bacon v. Feigel, 76 Fla. 581, 80 South. Rep. 518. At common law when a deed is offered as evidence of its contents, its due execution had to be proven at least prima facie before the deed is admissible in evidence unless proof of the execution be waived by the adverse party. 2…
-
Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Hartline, 84 Fla. 133 (Fla. 1922)…tted and is denied at the instance of the opposing party, there is no election that will bar a proper remedy duly invoked. See Malsby v. Gamble, 63 Fla. 508, 57 South. Rep. 687. As to the right to maintain this action see 27 Fla. 443; 25 Fla. 853; 76 Fla. 581; 70 Fla. 245. Affirmed. Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Coogler v. Rogers, 25 Fla. 853 (Fla. 1889)
- Gibbs v. McCoy, 70 Fla. 245 (Fla. 1915)