N. F. JONES AND ALBERTA JONES, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
BILL WELLMAN AND GUSSIE WELLMAN, HIS WIFE, 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.
This case concerns the western boundary of a government lot in Okeechobee County, Florida. The appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of the defendants but remanded the case to correct a minor inaccuracy in the final judgment's property description.
The western boundary of Government Lot 1 is the Hancock meander line, and the plaintiffs are not entitled to the land between the meander line and Taylor Creek. The jury's verdict to this effect was correct.
“The issue involved in this action in ejectment, on appeal, is the determination of the western boundary of Government Lot 1, Section 35, Township 37 South, Range 35 East, in Okeechobee County.”
This quote establishes the central legal issue of the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs claimed ownership of land up to the high water mark of Taylor Creek, asserting title and possession since 1919. The defendants contende…
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 Meander Line cases and more on FLexlaw
The issue involved in this action in ejectment, on appeal, is the determination of the western boundary of Government Lot 1, Section 35, Township 37 South, Range 35 East, in Okeechobee County.
Plaintiff asserts the correct boundary is the high water mark of Taylor Creek which runs north and south, and that all land between the Hancock meander line and Taylor Creek is the property of the plaintiff by virtue of title and possession from 1919.
Defendant maintains the western boundary of this land is the Hancock meander line and that plaintiff is not entitled to possession of the land between Hancock meander line and Taylor Creek.
The jury resolved the question in favor of the defendant and the trial court made their verdict the judgment of the court. We find no error in the substance of this judgment and therefore affirm. However, prefatory remarks to the description of the property are misleading and inaccurate; therefore, we remand with instructions to correct the final judgment which describes the property in the first paragraph, fourth line, in the property description, reading “and the North boundary of State Road 15 (U.S. 441).” to accurately reflect the boundary of the disputed area, which is the metes and bounds specific description immediately following the prefatory remarks.
Affirmed, with directions.
WALDEN, C. J., McCAIN, J., and GONZALEZ, JOSE A., Jr., Associate Judge, confcur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
W.S.M., JR. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 692 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…there will be sufficient time for the latter party to file any objections he may have to all or any part of such itemization and for the court to hear and adjudicate such items by the time it enters the final judgment or decree. Thurman v. Thurman, 223 So. 2d 572, 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Sullivan v. Musella, 526 So. 2d 719, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 534 So. 2d 401 (Fla.1988). We leave to the trial court on remand, in the event of a dispute about particular items, the task of identifying which claime…