PENSACOLA ICE COMPANY
v.
PERRY

U.S. | 1887-02-07
120 U.S. 318 Supreme Court of the United States (1887) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 30 L. Ed. 663 · 7 S. Ct. 576 · 1887 U.S. LEXIS 1977 · SCDB 1886-142
Cited by 3 cases

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.

Synopsis

In an ejectment action in Florida, the trial court rendered a verdict for the plaintiff but failed to state the quantity of the plaintiff's estate or describe the land as required by Florida statutes enacted in 1881. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that compliance with the statutory requirements for specificity in ejectment verdicts and judgments is mandatory.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Waite

Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. A statute of Florida, approved February 22, 1881, contains the following provisions:

“ Sec. A The verdict in actions of ejectment shall, when for the plaintiff, state the quantity of the estate of the plaintiff, and describe the land by its metes and bounds, by the number of the lot or other certain description.

“ Sec. 5. The judgment awarding possession shall, in like manner, state the quantity of the estate, and give description of the land recovered.”

This was an action of ejectment, and the verdict, which was fo.r the plaintiff, -did not state the quantity of the estate or describe the land. This is assigned for error, among others, and Perry, the defendant in error, in the brief which has been filed in his behalf, confesses that the judgment in hisffavor is thereby vitiated. Without considering any of the other errors, assigned, therefore, we reverse the judgment on this ground alone and remand the cause for a new trial. '

Reversed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Gray v. The First Nat'l Bank of Pensacola, 31 Fla. 590 (Fla. 1893)
  • Farley v. Hill, 150 U.S. 572 (U.S. 1893)
    …of going into the evidence at large. This view resulted in a reversal of the decree of the Circuit Court sustaining the plea, and the cause was remanded with directions to overrule the plea, and to order the defendants to answer. Farley v. Kittson, 120 U. S. 318. The result of the new trial below was that the Circuit Court dismissed the bill, and, as we learn from the opinion of that court, mainly upon two grounds, namely, that the plaintiff had failed to sustain the allegations of his bill by sufficient p…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw