W. D. HOYT AND R. H. HOYT, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
W. L. EVANS, 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.
This case addresses whether a subsequent grantee of real estate can eject a party in possession under a verbal contract of sale, even if part of the purchase price has been paid. The court held that such a grantee cannot eject the party in possession until their contract rights are legally terminated.
No, the subsequent grantee is not entitled to a judgment in ejectment for possession of the land until the contract rights of the party in possession have been duly terminated.
“But where the owner of real estate, under a verbal contract for the sale of it and upon the payment of a párt of the purchase price, puts one party in possession and afterwards executes a deed of conveyance to another, while the party is in possession under the contract of sale, such subsequent grantee is not entitled to a judgment in ejectment for the possession of the land at least until the contract rights of the party in possession have been duly terminated.”
This quote states the core holding of the case regarding the rights of a subsequent grantee versus a party in possession under a verbal contract.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe owner of real estate entered into a verbal contract for sale, received part of the purchase price, and put the buyer in possession. Subsequently, …
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 Legal Title cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1058] On Rehearing. .
Per Curiam.-
— -A declaration in ejectment alléges'possession by the defendant and a plea of not guilty admits possession. The holder of the legal title to land may enforce the contract obligations of one in possession under a contract to purchase or upon default may terminate the contract rights by due course of law.
But where the owner of real estate, under a verbal contract for the sale of it and upon the payment of a párt of the purchase price, puts one party in possession and afterwards executes a deed of conveyance to another, while the party is in possession under the contract of sale, such subsequent grantee is not entitled to a judgment in ejectment for the possession of the land at least until the contract rights of the party in possession have been duly terminated.
Rehearing denied.
Wi-iitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur ;
Brown, C. J., and Ellis and Strum, J. J., concur in the opinion.