CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
A. S. BROWARD, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Jacksonville sought to enjoin actions against it and to determine the ownership and location of Lot N in a subdivision where a plat discrepancy created a surplus of unaccounted land. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the city's motion to strike and demurrers, finding factual issues that required evidentiary development rather than resolution on pleadings alone.
The trial court correctly overruled the city's motions to strike and demurrers because the averments admitted by those pleadings raised issues of fact that could not be concluded as a matter of law and required consideration of evidentiary matters beyond the pleadings.
“As' the averments of the answers that are admitted by the demurrers and motion to strike, make issues that should be determined upon a consideration of evidentiary matters not concluded as matter of law by the pleadings as they now stand, the order appealed from will be affirmed”
The court's holding that factual issues admitted by the pleadings require evidentiary consideration and cannot be resolved on the pleadings alone.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Jacksonville owned Lot N in a subdivision of the J. Fenwick and S. Wilson Grants. A plat showed lots A through N with stated dimensions, b…
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 Quiet Title cases and more on FLexlaw
The City of Jacksonville brought suit against A. S. Broward and others to enjoin actions at law against the city and to determine and decree the location, content and ownership of “Lot ‘N’ of the Subdivision of the J. Fenwick and S. Wilson Grants in Sections 44, 45 and 47, in Township 1, South, Ranges 26 and 27, as shown by the letter ‘N’ on plat of said Subdivision recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 8 of the former public records of Duval County, Florida,” etc.
It appears from the allegations and exhibits of the bill of complaint that the plat referred to delineates lots numbered A to N inclusive, each lot containing stated dimensions, lot N being shown as extending from lot M as shown on the plat, west to the range line between ranges 26 and 27 East; that the land content stated on each lot as' shown by the plats, is in the aggregate less than the actual measurement on the ground of the land represented by the plat as lying between the eastern line of lot A and the western line of lot N. This leaves a surplus of land in the area which the plat purports to cover and which the city in its bill of complaint in effect alleges should be apportioned to the several lots so that the city, as owner of lot N, would have decreed to it the proper proportionate area extending East from the said range line. The defendants by- answer in effect claim that the surplus exists as unplatted lands of the owners when the plat was made, lying between the true western line of lot N and the range line. Thus both parties' assert the inaccuracy of the plat; and each seeks a construction of the plat in connection with the conveyances refer*81ring to the plat and with other evidence that may be considered under the pleadings.
The court below overruled the complainant’s motions to strike and demurrers addressed to answers of the defendants, with leave to the complainant to reply as advised. Complainant appealed.
As' the averments of the answers that are admitted by the demurrers and motion to strike, make issues that should be determined upon a consideration of evidentiary matters not concluded as matter of law by the pleadings as they now stand, the order appealed from will be affirmed without a detailed discussion of the errors assigned, and the cause will be remanded for further appropriate proceedings)
It is so ordered.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Brown, J. J., concur.
(dissenting). — I think the pleadings present a justiciable question is whether the acreage in area remains vested in the heirs of John Broward or has passed to their successors in title to be prorated according to value or otherwise between the lots' constituting the whole area shown on the plat as involved in the partition, which question could be now determined and probably would terminate the litigation.
Buford, J.
(dissenting). — I think the pleadings present a justiciable question is whether the acreage in area remains vested in the heirs of John Broward or has passed to their successors in title to be prorated according to value or otherwise between the lots' constituting the whole area shown on the plat as involved in the partition, which question could be now determined and probably would terminate the litigation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City of Jacksonville v. Broward, 120 Fla. 841 (Fla. 1935)…he decreed that the excess had never been apportioned and that title thereto was vested in appellant and appellees as tenants in common. This appeal is from that decree. For a discussion of other phases of this case see 97 Fla. 885, 122 So. 521, and 109 Fla. 79, 146 So. 671. Several questions are exemplified for us to resolve, but they all turn on whether or not the final decree of the chancellor was' erroneous. The record discloses these pertinent facts: that the J. Fenwich and S. Wilson Grants in Secti…