NETTIE GOODBREAD, FOR THE USE OF S. C. COLE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
H. R. THOMAS, 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 ejectment case, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a jury verdict for the plaintiff because the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on equitable estoppel principles. The instruction improperly assumed that Cole had established an equitable obligation to convey the property to Thomas, placing the burden on Cole to prove he gave notice he would not convey.
The court reversed the judgment, holding that the trial court committed harmful error by instructing the jury in a manner that assumed Cole had established an equitable obligation to convey the title to Thomas, thereby making Cole's recovery dependent upon proving notice to Thomas that he would not convey.
“If you find for the plaintiff in the case, that is if you find that Mr. Cole had a paper title to the property entitling him to the possession of it, or if you find that Cole put Thomas upon notice that he, Cole, was going to acquire such title and that when he acquired it, it was going to be his property and not that of Thomas, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff.”
The erroneous jury instruction that improperly assumed an equitable obligation and conditioned recovery on notice
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCole acquired title to land through an execution sale. Thomas had previously mortgaged land to Cole, and Thomas sought to establish an equitable estop…
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.
For previous opinions herein see Goodbread v. Thomas, 73 Fla. 663, 74 South. Rep. 798, and Thomas v. Goodbread, 78 Fla. 278, 82 Suth Rep. 835.
At the last trial in ejectment the plaintiff showed a paper title and the defendant sought to show an equitable estoppel under the principles stated in the former opinion herein, Thomas v. Goodbread, supra.
The court gave a number of charges that are substantially correct, and then instructed the jury as follows: “If you find for the plaintiff in the case, that is if you find that Mr. Cole had a paper title to the property entitling him to the possession of it, or if you find that Cole put Thomas upon notice that he, Cole, was going to acquire such title and that when he acquired it, it was going to be his property and not that of Thomas, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff. ’ ’
The quoted charge in effect assumes that it is established in the case that the use plaintiff Cole had equitably bound himself to convey to Thomas the title to land he, Cole, acquired through an execution sale by a third person of the land that had been mortgaged by Thomas to Cole prior to the date of the judgment; and the charge in effect states the law tó be that Cole must have put Thomas on notice that when he acquired the title it was “to be his property and not that of Mr. Thomas,” before Cole could recover. As the testimony seeking to show that Cole had equitably bound himself to convey the title to Thomas, is not conclusive in all its essential elements, but is controverted in several respects and not clearly shown in others, it was harmful error to assume that the obligation to convey had been established, and to make the plaintiff’s recovery dependent upon notice to Thomas that he would not convey to him.
Judgment reversed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J.. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Basil Griggs v. State, 96 Fla. 749 (Fla. 1928)…defendant as assuming that certain material and controverted facts were conclusively established by the evidence and stating as law matters of fact which the jury should determine. See Hisler v. State, 52 Fla. 30, 42 So. R. 692; Goodbread v. Thomas, 82 Fla. 411, 90 So. R. 156. Upon the original consideration ■ of this case, the Court carefully scrutinized and weighed the charge in question, having in mind the criticism just stated. The Court was then, and is now, of the opinion that while the charge compl…
-
Sellars v. State, 96 Fla. 751 (Fla. 1928)…defendant as assuming that certain material and controverted facts were conclusively established by the evidence and stating as law matters of fact which the jury should determine. See Hisler v. State, 52 Fla. 30, 42 So. R. 692; Goodbread v. Thomas, 82 Fla. 411, 90 So. R. 156. Upon the original consideration of this case, the Court carefully scrutinized and weighed the charge in question, having in mind the criticism just stated. The Court was then, and is now, of the opinion that while the charge complai…
Authorities Cited
- Thomas v. Mrs. Nettie Goodbread, 78 Fla. 278 (Fla. 1919)
- Nettie Goodbread v. Thomas, 73 Fla. 663 (Fla. 1917)