E. C. REEVES, MAGGIE CHILDS, AND HER HUSBAND, EVERETT CHILDS; ETHEL JACKSON, ELECTOR LEE OR ELECTRA LEE, ROBERT JACKSON AND FRED JACKSON OR FERDINAND JACKSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
AMES E. BARLOW, 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 reversed its initial per curiam affirmance of a lower court's decree, finding on rehearing that the complainant was not entitled to maintain a suit to cancel a deed and remove a cloud from title because the defendant was in possession of the property.
No, the complainant was not entitled to maintain the suit because the defendant's possession of the property precluded the complainant, who claimed legal title, from bringing such an action.
“it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.”
The court's initial decision on the first submission of the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe complainant filed a suit to cancel a deed and remove a cloud from title. The lower court entered a decree in favor of the complainant. The defenda…
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 Possession Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.-
-This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises,-it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. On Rehearing.
This was a suit to cancel a deed and remove cloud from title. Per Curiam Order of Affirmance was filed October 19th, 1927. Motion for rehearing was filed and granted, Now, on further consideration of this cause, it appears by inferences fairly drawn from testimony adduced for the cotnplainant, that the defendant, E. C. Reeves, was at the time of the institution of the suit in possession of the property involved, thereby showing that the complainant, claiming a legal title, was not entitled to maintain this suit. Sec. 3213, Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920.
The decree should be reversed and the bill of complaint should be dismissed and it is so ordered.
Reversed.
Whitfield, Terrell, Strum and Buford, J. J., concur.