TEMPERANCE H. MALLORY, APPELLANT,
v.
ELIZABETH HALE, 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.
This case involves an ejectment action concerning a boundary line dispute, where the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment but directed a correction to an obvious omission in the property description within the judgment.
Yes, the judgment was affirmed, but with directions to the trial court to correct the omission in the property description.
“The record contains evidence sufficient to sustain the judgment entered.”
Establishes that the factual basis for the trial court's decision was adequate.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee (plaintiff) sued the appellant (defendant) in an ejectment action to resolve a boundary line dispute. The case was tried by a judge witho…
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 Conclusions Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, appellee her.e, in an action at law in ejectment which involved a boundary line dispute with the defendant, appellant here. The case was tried by the judge without a jury. The court wrote a detailed opinion in which it set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The record contains evidence sufficient to sustain the judgment entered.
Although not raised in this appeal, we note that the judgment of the trial court contains an obvious omission in describing the real property, in that, the description, after arriving at the point of beginning, provides:
“ * * * Thence east 135 feet, thence West 135 feet to the edge of the sidewalk, thence north 49.25 feet to point of beginning.”
The pleading of both parties and the record clearly show the obvious omission in the judgment of two sides of the rectangle being described. The judgment is affirmed with directions to the trial court to correct the omission in the description of the property.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and KANNER and SMITH, JJ., concur.