MARTIN
v.
THOMPSON
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.
Martin sued Thompson to recover a wheat crop that Thompson had grown on land he took from Martin's possession in 1876 and occupied adversely while claiming title. The Supreme Court held that an owner out of possession cannot recover crops raised by someone in adverse possession of the land, and the proper remedy is an action for recovery of the land itself rather than for the crops alone. The Court dismissed the case because it did not present a federal question.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This suit was brought by Martin, the defendant in error in Durand & Thompson v. Martin, just decided, to recover of Thompson, one of the plaintiffs in error, a crop of wheat raised by him during the year 1878 on the land described in that case, Avhicli he took from the possession of Martin in 1876, and occupied adversely thereafter. - The court has found as a fact that Martin neArer had possession of the crop before the commencement of this suit, and that it was raised by Thompson with his oavii labor and at his oavh expense Avliile he held exclusive possession of the land adversely to Martin and claiming title.
From this it is clear that the question of the title to the land Avas not necessarily involved in this case, and on looking into the opinion, which in California forms part of the record, we find that the decision Avas put entirely on the ground that' the OAvner of land out of possession cannot recover from one in possession, holding adversely under claim of title, the crops raised by him in cultivating the soil. The remedy in such a case is by an appropriate action for tibie recovery of the possession-of the land and damages-for the detention. This does not present a Federal question, and
The motion to dismiss is granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Rose, 123 Fla. 544 (Fla. 1936)…junction is ordinarily appropriate and adequate. See 14 R. D. L. 435-442; City of Gainesville v. Gas & Electric Power Co., 65 Fla. 404, 52 So. 919; Maxcy v. Mayo, 103 Fla. 552, 139 So. 121; Van Deman, etc., Co. v. Rast, 240 U. S. 342, 36 S. C. 370, 30 L. Ed. 679; Coen v. Lee, 116 Fla. 215, 156 So. 747. In the case of Six Mile Creek Kennel Club v. State Racing Commission, 160 So. 58, 119 Fla. 142, we held that certiorari was the proper remedy to test the validity of a State Racing Commission’s order, an ord…
-
City of Miami Beach v. State, 4 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1941)…unction is ordinarily appropriate and adequate. *Page 258 See 14 R.D.L. 435-442; City of Gainesville v. Gas Electric Power Co., 65 Fla. 404, 52 So. 919; Maxcy v. Mayo, 103 Fla. 552,139 So. 121; Van Deman, etc., Co. v. Rast, 240 U.S. 342,36 S.C. 370, 30 L.Ed. 679; Coen v. Lee, 116 Fla. 215,156 So. 747." In this case the trial judge substituted his judgment for that of the City Council. This we hold was improper in this form of action. The judgment is therefore reversed. BROWN, C. J., WHITFIELD and BUFORD,…