HENRY H. BATTEY, LILA G. BATTEY, HIS WIFE, GRACE B. BAYARD, GEORGE M. BATTEY, MATTIE B. CRICHTON, E. C. CRICHTON, BESSIE B. TROUTMAN, AND MARY B. KING, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT BATTEY, APPELLEE
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a circuit court's decision to overrule a demurrer to a bill seeking reformation of a deed. The case involves an agreement to sell estate lands where a portion of the property was inadvertently omitted from the deed due to mutual mistake, and the court held that such allegations state a sufficient equity claim for reformation.
The court held that when a demurrer to the entire bill is filed, it should be overruled if the bill contains any equity, and allegations of mutual mistake in property description with omission of contracted lands constitute sufficient equity for reformation of a deed.
“such a demurrer operates as an admission that all the allegations in the bill which are well pleaded are true, and a demurrer to the whole bill should be overruled if the bill makes any ease for equitable relief.”
Establishes the standard of review for demurrers to entire bills in equity, requiring overruling if any equity exists
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam C. Battey died intestate with his mother Martha B. Battey as sole heir. In December 1917, Martha agreed to sell all estate lands in Lee County…
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 Well-Pleaded Allegations cases and more on FLexlaw
Long, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Judge in and for Lee County, Florida, overruling a demurrer to the bill.
The bill in substance alleges that one William C. Battey, a bachelor, died intestate seized and possessed of certain lands in Lee county, Florida leaving as his sole heir at law his mother, Martha B. Battey; that in December, 1917, Martha B. Battey entered into an agreement to sell to appellee all of the lands of the estate of William C. Battey, deceased, in Lee County, for the sum of $4,000.00, and on the 10th of January, 1918, executed a deed to appellee intending to convey all of the lands in said county belonging to said estate; that a part of the land purchased was through the mutual mistake of both parties inadvertently omitted from the deed; that in February of 1922, Martha B. Battey died, leaving surviving her appellants in this cause; that as soon as the omission of said lands from the deed was discovered he made demand on defendants (appellants here) to correct the error; that he has had supervision of the property, 'paid the taxes thereon, and has been recognized by defendants as the owner of all of the lands belonging to said estate.
The demurrer filed to test the sufficiency of the bill is directed to the bill as a whole.
It has been held by this court that when a demurrer is directed to the entire bill, that if the bill contains any equity the demurrer should be overruled.
‘1 In passing upon a demurrer to the whole bill in a suit in equity, every presumption is against the bill; but it is also true that such a demurrer operates as an 'admission that all the allegations in the bill which are well pleaded are true, and a demurrer to the whole bill should be overruled if the bill makes any ease for equitable relief. ’ ’ Holt v. Hillman-Sutherland Co., 56 Fla. 801, 47 South. Rep. 934. In the ease of Raulerson v. Peeples, 79 Fla. 367, 84 South. Rep. 370, this court said: The bill sets up that there was a mistake in the description of the land in the deed, and prays for a reformation of such deed. This is certainly sufficient to give equity jurisdiction for the reformation of the deed.
“If the plaintiff duly contracted to buy of the de- . fendant and the defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration several pieces or parcels of land, and, if in pursuance of said contract, a deed was made by the defendant to the plaintiff, wherein and whereby by mistake and inadvertence in describing the property conveyed, there was omitted therefrom an important part of the property contracted to be sold, and if the purchase price being a round sum for all the tracts has been paid, a case for the reformation of the deed was clearly made out.” Wasatch Min. Co. v. Crescent Min. Co., 148 U. S. 293, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 600. Of course the proofs must conform to applicable rules of law.
The order of the Chancellor is affirmed.
Per Curiam. — The record in this cause having been considered by this Court, and the foregoing opinion prepared under Chapter 7837, Acts of 1919, adopted by the Court as its opinion, it is considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the decree of the Circuit Court in this cause should be, and the same is hereby affirmed.
Brown, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell. Strum and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tampa N. R.R. Co. v. City of Tampa, 104 Fla. 481 (Fla. 1932)…. 756, 39 Law. Ed. 873. We think, therefore, that the deed brought in question should be reformed in accordance with the prayer of the [*486] bill. Jackson vs. Magbee, 21 Fla. 622; Williams vs. Bettiline, 69 Fla. 193, 67 So. 857; Battey vs. Battey, 92 Fla. 512, 119 So. 584. The decree of the Chancellor is accordingly reversed. Reversed. Whitfield, P.J., and Davis, J., concur. Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment. . Buford, C.J., dissents.…
-
Schmidt v. Maude C. Kibben and Edward Kibben, 100 Fla. 1684 (Fla. 1931)…n equity for substantial relief may be shown by appropriate and sufficient evidence, it is error to sustain a general demurrer to the bill. Edmons v. Gracy, 61 Fla. 593, 54 So. R. 899; Wells v. Williams, 80 Fla. 498, 86 So. R. 336; Battey v. Bettey, 92 Fla. 512, 109 So. R. 584; Hall v. Forman, 94 Fla. 682, 114 So. R. 560; Boone v. Gay, 84 Fla. 589, 94 So. R. 501; Leavine v. Belt Automobile Indemnity Ass’n, 88 Fla. 553, 102 So. R. 768; Walker v. Close, 98 Fla. 1103, 325 So. R. 521. [*1687] Appellants in the…
-
Gibbs Crompton v. Kirkland, 157 Fla. 89 (Fla. 1946)…Kirkland is confined under said deed to that part of said Lot Number Thirteen north of the north line of plaintiff’s property and no more. It is to be remembered that on this appeal all facts well pleaded are admitted to be true. Battey v. Battey, 92 Fla. 512, 109, So. 584. We are of the opinion that plaintiff’s bill [*93] of complaint as filed in the court below stated a cause for equitable cognizance and made out a case for the interposition of a court of equity, and that it was error for the chancello…
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
- Raulerson v. Peeples, 79 Fla. 367 (Fla. 1920)
- E. N. Holt as Tax Collector of Clay Cnty. v. Hillman-Sutherland Co., 56 Fla. 801 (Fla. 1908)
- Wasatch Mining Co. v. Crescent Mining Co., 148 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1893)