MAUDE WADDELL, ET VIR
v.
WALTER L. DONELLY, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF PETER DONELLY
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.
In an ejectment action, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the plaintiff against defendants who occupied property under an agent's permission and then challenged the agent's authority while relying on a subsequently obtained tax deed. The court held that tenants cannot dispute their landlord's title, and defendants who accepted possession and paid rent through the agent were estopped from later questioning the agent's authority.
Judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed. Defendants were estopped from challenging Rawls's authority as an agent because they accepted possession through him, paid him rent, and thereby dealt with him as the owner's representative. A tenant cannot dispute the landlord's title, and this prohibition extends to a spouse who enters into possession with her husband.
“A tenant may not dispute his landlord's title (Rogers v. Martin, 87 Fla. 204, 99 South. Rep, 551), and this inhibition will extend to the wife who enters into possession of premises with her husband.”
Establishes the core legal principle that tenants are estopped from challenging title, which applies to both husband and wife in this case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendants, a married couple, entered into possession of Lot 12 in Block 4 of Hamilton Estates on June 29, 1936, through Burton H. Rawls, who provided…
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 Tax Deed Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
To simplify this opinion plaintiffs in error will be called defendants and defendant in error, plaintiff.
Plaintiff sued defendants in ejectment claiming Lot twelve in Block four, Unit one of Hamilton Estates. The only plea filed in the case was as follows:
“And now comes the defendant, Maude Waddell, joined by her husband, Albert Waddell, and for her plea to the declaration now on file herein says: That she is not guilty.”
At the conclusion of all the testimony the court granted the motion of the plaintiff for a directed verdict and the jury in obedience to the ruling found the “defendants guilty.”
The defendants were man and wife who had lived on the property for eight or nine months at the time of the trial, having been let into possession of the property by Burton H. Rawls on the 29th day of June, 1936. The house which they then occupied had been vacant and the keys to it were supplied by Rawls. Defendant husband agreed with Rawls to pay rent and did so for more than a month.
This remarkable situation then developed: Defendant *572wife demanded possession- of defendant husband, although, for aught the record shows, peace and harmony prevailed in their domestic life. Significantly the demand was coincidental with the date a tax deed issued to defendant wife, August 3, 1936, after publication of notice therefor first appeared in the newspaper July 5, 1936, six days after the defendant went into possession of the land.
Plaintiff’s title is based on a warranty deed to his testate.
The method followed by the defendants in the plea filed and in the effort to distinguish between the possession of the wife and that of the husband is quite ingenious but does not recommend itself to the Court as a bona fide transaction.
Defendants challenge the authority of the witness Rawls who alone testified to his right to act as agent for plaintiff. They cited cases with reference to the inability of an agent to establish his own authority but it seems useless to explore this field of the law in view of the facts which are not disputed.
The man, whose authority as an agent is questioned, delivered the keys to the property to those who make the challenge and they paid rent to him for the use of the property. They could not in one breath receive benefits from him as an agent and in the next refute his right to act. As they have dealt with Rawls as the representative of the owner and thereby gained possession of the land, they should not be heard to question his power afterwards while resisting an-action in ejectment by basing a defense on a tax deed obtained subsequent to their entry.
A tenant may not dispute his landlord’s title (Rogers v. Martin, 87 Fla. 204, 99 South. Rep, 551), and this inhibition will extend to the wife who enters into possession of premises with her husband. Holton v. Jackson, 184 Ky. 559, 212 S. W. Rep. 587. See also Waldron v. Waldron, *57373 W. Va. 311, 80 S. E. Rep. 811; and Sizemore v. Trimble, 26 Ky. L. 8, 80 S. W. Rep. 447.
In the circumstances reflected by the evidence we believe the position assumed by defendants is wholly indefensible.
There is no need to elaborate on the merits of the controversy by discussing the various objections to the tax deed.
The judgment is affirmed.
Terrell, C. J, and Buford, J, concur.
Ci-xapman, J, concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Whitfield and Brown not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Amphitrite Corp. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 147 Fla. 497 (Fla. 1941)…hat the defendant was the lessee of the plaintiff and so long as such relationship existed the defendant could not question the lessor’s title to the leased premises. State ex rel. v. Hutchins, 118 Fla. 220, 158 So. 716; Waddall, et ux., v. Donelly, 138 Fla. 570, 189 So. 650. 2. The defendant claims this suit was prematurely brought for that defendant was a tenant at will paying rent from year to year and less than three months notice was given to quit and vacate the premises. This is without merit. The qu…
-
Delpa, Inc. v. Martinez, 878 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…er were not ‘conditions’ of the settlement, but rather mechanical and legally inconsequential means of effecting it. They thus should be regarded as mere surplusage, the existence of which should not affect substantial rights.”); Waddell v. Donelly, 138 Fla. 570, 189 So. 650 (1939); 2 Fla. Jur.2d Agency § 113 (1998)(“A third person cannot receive the benefits of a transaction through an agent and then refute the agent’s right to act.”). SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GERSTEN, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Deuty Rogers v. Martin, 87 Fla. 204 (Fla. 1924)