REUBEN S. WILLIAMS
v.
CLARENCE PICHARD AND KATHERINE PICHARD, HIS WIFE
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.
Plaintiff brought an ejectment action against defendants claiming title to adjoining lots in Leon County, Florida, based on both common source of title and adverse possession. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment because the court erroneously allowed the defendants five peremptory challenges when, as parties with common interests, they were entitled to only three combined.
The trial court committed reversible error by allowing the defendants five peremptory challenges. Defendants, as parties with common interests, were entitled only to the three peremptory challenges prescribed by law, not five. The case was reversed for retrial by another jury.
“If there are two or more defendants and their interests are separate or antagonistic each may be allowed the number of peremptory challenges prescribed by law but when their interests are common as in this case, it is error to allow more than the number prescribed by law.”
Establishes the governing rule that defendants with common interests must share the statutory limit of peremptory challenges, not receive additional challenges per defendant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff and defendants claimed adjoining lots in Leon County from a common source of title. The parties had agreed on an uncertain boundary line, er…
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 Inchoate Right Of Dower cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff in error brought an action in ejectment against defendants in error, the latter being husband and wife, and the wife’s claim in the disputed premises being limited to her inchoate right of dower. Both parties claimed from a common source of title and in addition the plaintiff claims by adverse possession through deed from Daniel B. Geddie and wife dated September 12, 1901. This appeal is from a final judgment in favor of the defendants.
*372In empanneling the jury, the trial court allowed the defendants five peremptory challenges. Such allowance is assigned as error.
Section 4359, Compiled General Laws of 1927, provides that at the trial of any civil cause each party shall be entitled to three peremptory challenges of jurors. If there are two or more defendants and their interests are separate or antagonistic each may be allowed the number of peremptory challenges prescribed by law but when their interests are common as in this case, it is error to allow more than the number prescribed by law.
The theory of the cases so holding appears to be that the right to a peremptory challenge is the right to reject and not the right to select and that no party to a cause has a right to any particular veniremen to try his case. It follows that if one party is allowed more peremptory challenges than the other, he is in effect given advantage in that he may select by indirection particular veriremen to try his cause. Schultz vs. Gilbert, 300 Ill. App. 417, 20 N. E. (2nd) 884; State v. Bertrand, 167 La. 373, 119 So. 261; 35 C. J. Section 468, page 409.
Two other questions are argued but they turn on proof vel non of a common boundary between the lots of the plaint iff and defendant being the subject of the litigation.
The lands in question are two adjoining lots in Leon County. It is contended by plaintiff and not denied by defendant that the boundary between said lots was uncertain but that the owners agreed on a certain line as the permanent boundary, erected a fence thereon and lived by the agreement by actual occupation of the lots for many years. The fence was destroyed *373more than seven years later and defendant still later erected a brick wall over the original fence line trespassing on the plaintiff’s lot; hence this litigation.
If as a matter of fact a common boundary was agreed on and proven and a fence erected thereon as contended, that settled the boundary between the lots and that question is controlled by Watrous v. Morrison, 33 Fla. 261, 14 So. 805; Kilgore v. Leary, 131 Fla. 715, 180 So. 35; Acosta v. Gingles, 70 Fla. 13, 69 So. 717; Bossom v. Gillman, 70 Fla. 310, 70 So. 364. Since the case must go back to be passed on by another jury, further comment on this point would not be appropriate.
Reversed.
BROWN, C. J., TERRELL, CHAPMAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. Thelma E. Johntry and her husband, 214 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)…cause is Reversed and Remanded with instructions to [*65] the lower court to enter such order or orders as may be necessary to fully effect the terms of this decision. WIGGINTON, C. J., and SPECTOR, J., concur. . Williams v. Pichard, 150 Ela. 371, 7 So. 2d 468 (1942); Euse v. Gibbs, 49 So. 2d 843 (Fla.1951).…
-
Johnson v. Green, 54 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1951)…or to the time of the survey. Counsel for appellant point out that if the record title owner of Lot 190 had been made a party to the suit, then the following authorities would control: Kilgore v. Leary, 131 Fla. 715, 180 So. 35; Williams v. Pichard, 150 Fla. 371, 7 So. 2d 468; Watrous v. Morrison, 33 Fla. 261, 14 So. 805, and Shaw v. Williams, Fla., 50 So. 2d 125. We cannot rule on the contention as the owner of Lot 190 has not been made a party to this litigation. On September 22, 1950, the appellant, thr…
-
Euse v. Gibbs, 49 So.2d 843 (Fla. 1951)…proprietors have by such consent and conduct agreed permanently upon the limits or the extent of their respective lands or property." Watrous v. Morrison, 33 Fla. 261, 14 So. 805, 807; Kilgore v. Leary, 131 Fla. 715, 180 So. 35; Williams v. Pichard, 150 Fla. 371, 7 So. 2d 468; Palm Orange Groves v. Yelvington, Fla., 41 So. 2d 883. As we view the evidence in the record, Cook, Keubler, Costa and Euse were uncertain as to the exact boundary line between the adjoining tracts of land at the time deeds were exec…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Watrous v. Morrison, 33 Fla. 261 (Fla. 1894)
- Bossom v. Gillman, 70 Fla. 310 (Fla. 1915)
- Sallie Acosta v. Gingles, 70 Fla. 13 (Fla. 1915)
- Barnard Kilgore v. Leary, 131 Fla. 715 (Fla. 1938)