BANK OF SOUTH JACKSONVILLE, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
CATHERINE R. CAMMAR, 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.
Bank of South Jacksonville sued Catherine Cammar in ejectment to recover land. The trial court excluded a plat referred to in the deeds describing the property and granted the defendant's motion for non-suit. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that a plat referred to in a deed becomes part of the deed and is admissible when the deed itself is admitted.
The court held that when a plat is referred to in a deed, the plat becomes part of the instrument and is admissible as evidence. Since the deeds were admitted in evidence, the plat was also properly admissible. The court affirmed the rule that a description in a deed is sufficient if a surveyor can locate the land by applying the rules of surveying.
“The rule with reference to the sufficiency of description in a deed is that, if a surveyor, by applying the rules of surveying, can locate the land, the description is sufficient; and the deed will be sustained if it is possible from the whole description to ascertain and identify the land intended to be conveyed.”
Establishes the standard for sufficiency of property description in deeds, which the court applied to validate the deeds in this case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBank of South Jacksonville brought an ejectment action against Catherine Cammar to recover certain land. The plaintiff's deeds described the property …
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.
West, C. J.
This is an action of ejectment. The declaration contains two counts. The first is in the statutory form. The second alleges the claim of the defendant adversely to the plaintiff of the land described. The plea to each count is not guilty,- with a special plea to the first count denying possession. It was stipulated that the parties claim title from a designated common source, the stipulation providing that it should not be construed as an admission by defendant of possession by her of the land sued for. Upon a trial, objections of defendant having been sustained to the introduction in evidence of a certified copy of a plat of the premises sought to be recovered, plaintiff moved for a non-suit with bill of exceptions, which motion was granted, and judgment against the plaintiff in favor of the defendant was entered. Writ of error was taken from this court.
The assignments of error are the rulings of the court sustaining defendant’s objections to the introduction in evidence of the plat referred to and the entry of judgment for defendant.
The deeds under which plaintiff claims and deraigns its title were offered and admitted in evidence. In the description of the property contained in the deeds a plat of the property is referred to, but when the plat, or copy of it, was offered it was objected to upon the ground that the identification of the land shown on the plat with the land desci’ibed in the declaration is not sufficient. The objection was sustained. The plaintiff then produced as a witness a civil engineer who testified in substance that he was familiar with the premises and that by referring to the deeds and plat and applying the ordinary rules of surveying he could locate the property sought to be recovered.
When the witness was excused the plat was re-offered in evidence. Objections to its admission were sustained.
In Campbell v. Carruth, 32 Fla. 264, 13 South. Rep. 432, this court said: ‘‘The rule with reference to the sufficiency of description in a deed is that, if a surveyor, by applying the rules of surveying, cap, locate the land, the description is sufficient; and the deed will be sustained if it is possible from the whole description to ascertain and identify the land intended to be conveyed.” Ansley v. Graham, 73 Fla. 388, 74 South. Rep. 505; Walker v. Lee, 51 Fla. 360, 40 South. Rep. 881; Hogans v. Carruth, 18 Fla. 587. In recognition of this doctrine the deeds were admitted in evidence. If the deeds were admissible, the plat was. “Where one deed refers to another or to a map or plan of a survey for a description, the deed, map or plan referred to becomes as much a part of the instrument making the reference as if actually copied into it.” Landreu v. Watkins, 26 Fla. 390, 7 South. Rep. 876; Sanders v. Ransom, 37 Fla. 457, 20 South. Rep. 530; East Coast Lbr. Co. v. Ellis-Young Co., 55 Fla. 256, 45 South. Rep. 826.
The ruling sustaining objections to the admission in evidence of the plat was error. The judgment is reversed.
Whitfield, Ellis, Browne, Terrell and Strum, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Providence Square Ass'n, Inc. v. Biancardi, 507 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 1987)…s to a subdivision plat. The declaration sets the legal ground rules for a controlled process of subdivision, development, sale, and use of the individual parcels of real property pursuant to a general plan. See Bank of South Jacksonville v. Cammar, 89 Fla. 296, 103 So. 827 (1925); Lawyers Title Guaranty Fund v. Milgo Electronics, 318 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 602 (Fla.1976); § 718.104(7), Fla.Stat. (1984 Supp.) (declaration provisions are equitable servitudes that run with th…
-
Cornelia A. Routh v. Williams, 141 Fla. 334 (Fla. 1940)…is also settled that where a deed refers to another deed or to a map, plat, or survey for a description, the deed, map, plat or survey becomes as much a part of the instrument as if copied therein. Bank of South Jacksonville v. Cammar, 89 Fla. 296, 103 So. 827. The verity of the plat by which the purchase was made was fully attested. If the deed, map, plat, or survey is definite and one by which the land can be located, it will not be overthrown but- if it is indefinite, parol evidence may sometimes be i…
-
The Fed. Land Bank of Columbia v. Dekle, 108 Fla. 555 (Fla. 1933)…rmation by which a surveyor could locate the lands and that is all that the law requires. Black v. Skinner Manufacturing Company, 53 Fla. 1090, 43 So. 919; Ausley v. Graham, 73 Fla. 388, 74 So. 505; Bank of South Jacksonville v. Cammar, 89 Fla. 296, 103 So. 827. . The third question challenges the sufficiency of the acknowledgment of the execution of thei Dekle mortgage. The acknowledgment was made by C. R. Evans for the partnership of Pennington & Evans and is as follows: “State of Florida, “County of…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ansley v. Graham, 73 Fla. 388 (Fla. 1917)
- Lizzie Andreu v. Watkins, 26 Fla. 390 (Fla. 1890)
- Archibald Campbell v. Carruth, 32 Fla. 264 (Fla. 1893)
- Walker v. Patrick, 51 Fla. 360 (Fla. 1906)
- Hogans v. Carruth, 18 Fla. 587 (Fla. 1882)
- E. Coast Lumber Co. v. The Ellis-Young Co., 55 Fla. 256 (Fla. 1908)
- Sanders v. Ransom, 37 Fla. 457 (Fla. 1896)