CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND MIAMI BEACH IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANTS,
v.
LOUISE POINDEXTER, A WIDOW, SUING IN HER OWN BEHALF, AND AS LEGAL GUARDIAN OF PRISCILLA F. POINDEXTER, PRISCILLA F. TOTTENHOFF, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, J. R. TOTTENHOFF, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a decree reforming a plat from 1905 that contained a clerical error in legal descriptions. The case involved whether a court of equity could correct the misdescription of a surveyed property corner located near Miami Beach.
The court affirmed the lower court's decree reforming the plat, finding that the bill of complaint properly alleged a correctable error, all necessary parties were before the court, the complainants had adequate title, and the City of Miami Beach had not established title by adverse possession.
“The bill in effect alleges that the corner from which Frederick made all his measurements was the Southeast corner of the West half of the Northeast quarter of Sec. 34, Township 53 South, Range 42 East, and is located about 450 feet from the Atlantic Ocean, but that after having made his map Frederick erroneously designated the Government corner as the Southeast corner of the West half of the Northwest quarter of Section 34, Township 53 South, Range 42 East, the only mistake being in the substituting the word 'Northwest' for the word 'Northeast' being merely a clerical error.”
Establishes the nature of the error alleged in the bill of complaint—a clerical mistake in legal description despite accurate surveying.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceE. S. Frederick prepared a plat in May 1905 for Elnatban T. Field using the Southeast corner of the West half of the Northeast quarter of Section 34, …
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 Clerical Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam This suit was brought to reform a plat made by E.
S. Frederick in May, 1905, for Elnatban T. Field. The bill in effect alleges that the corner from which Frederick made all his measurements was the Southeast corner of the West half of the Northeast quarter of Sec. 34, Township 53 South, Range 42 East, and is located about 450 feet from the Atlantic Ocean, but that after having made his map Frederick erroneously designated the Government corner as the Southeast corner of the West half of the Northwest quarter of Section 34, Township 53 South, Range 42 East, the only mistake being in the substituting the word “Northwest” for the word “Northeast” being merely a clerical error. Demurrers and a plea on the part of defendants below, appellants here were overruled and appeal was taken from both said orders. It is contended here that the bill of complaint fails to show such error in the plat brought in question as a court of equity would be authorized to correct, that there is a lack of necessary parties to the bill, that the complainants are without title to the locus in quo, and that the City of Miami Beach had established title to the locus in quo by adverse user for more than seven years.
The record has been examined to each of these assignments and we think they must all be answered contrary to the contention of appellants. The points of law raised are so well settled that to enlarge on them here would serve no useful purpose. The decree of the chancellor is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Strum, J., concurs in the opinion and judgment. Ellis, C. J., dissents. Opinion filed December 22, 1928.
J. Harvey Bobillard, James A. Dixon, Shutts & Bowen, John S. Benz and E.
S. Quick, for Appellants; Mitchell D. Price and J.
H. Bozic, for Appellees.
Brown, J., disqualified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whipple v. State, 431 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…Cases, 66 Judicature 371, 374 (March 1983). .Carrington, Meador & Rosenberg, Justice On Appeal, 143 — 45 (1976); Florida High School Activities Assoc. v. Bradshaw, 369 So. 2d 398, 401, n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). . City of Miami Beach v. Poindexter, 96 Fla. 811, 119 So. 136 (1928).…
-
Williams v. State, 425 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…upreme Court noted that when the points of law on which [*1164] an appeal is predicated are well settled and a discussion of them would serve no useful purpose, the decision below would be affirmed without opinion. City of Miami Beach v. Poindexter, 96 Fla. 811, 119 So. 136 (1928). Since then, to handle the burgeoning appellate case load, first three district courts of appeal were created, then a fourth, and later a fifth. The ever growing volume of appeals makes it impossible and impracticable to write op…