CAMPBELL
v.
CLARK
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 this ejectment suit, the Florida Supreme Court upholds the trial court's judgment in favor of the record title holder (plaintiff-administratrix) against the defendant's claim based on a parol gift. The court affirmed the directed verdict for the plaintiff while preserving the defendant's potential remedies under Florida statute.
The trial court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, entering final judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant's parol gift defense does not overcome the plaintiff's established record title.
“There was no dispute about the fact that the plaintiff had record title and was not required to prove such title.”
Establishes that Clark's ownership was undisputed and placed no burden of proof on the plaintiff regarding title.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOdelle Pitts Clark, as administratrix of Walter R. Clark's estate, brought an ejectment suit against Hobb Campbell. Campbell claimed a parol gift as h…
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 Ejectment Suit cases and more on FLexlaw
MATHEWS, Justice.
This is an ejectment suit brought by Odelle Pitts Clark, as administratrix of the estate of Walter R. Clark, deceased, against Hobb Campbell. The defendant filed a plea of possession coupled with a parol gift. At the conclusion of the defendant’s case, the plaintiff moved for a directed verdict, ruling on which was reserved.
There was no dispute about the fact that the plaintiff had record title and was not required to prove such title. After the plaintiff had introduced her evidence, the case was submitted to the jury and the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant.
Thereafter the plaintiff filed a motion for new trial and for a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Court granted . this motion and thereafter . final judgment was entered for the plaintiff. This appeal is from that final judgment.
It may be that the defendant, appellant here, is entitled to some relief under F.S. Section 70.06, F.S.A. We find no reversible error and the judgment be and the same is hereby affirmed, but without prejudice to the right of the defendant-appellant ' to take such proceedings as he may be advised under F.S. Section 70.06, F.S.A. ROBERTS, C. J., TERRELL, J., and! MURPHREE, Associate Justice, concur..
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shem Lewis v. Evans, 406 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…he rationale, however, is that proof of privileged occasion, or prima facie proof of privilege, as it is sometimes called, raises a presumption of lack of malice and places upon the claimant the burden of proving malice in fact. Appell v. Dickinson, 73 So. 2d 824 (Fla.1954). . Appellee seizes upon certain language in Cape Publications v. Adams, 336 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) and asserts that proof of actual malice must have “convincing clarity.” We note that the author of Cape took that phrase from New…
-
Mays v. Stratton, 183 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)…l merit. The judgment appealed herein is .reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial on the issue of damages only. RAWLS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD, K., J., concur. . Abram v. Odham, (Fla.1956) 89 So. 2d 334; Appell v. Dickinson, (Fla.1954) 73 So. 2d 824; Caldwell v. Personal Finance Co. of St. Petersburg, (Fla.1950) 46 So. 2d 726; Leonard v. Wilson, 150 Fla. 503, 8 So. 2d 12; Coogler v. Rhodes, 38 Fla. 240, 21 So. 109. . Annot., 29 A.L.R. 549 (1924). . Berry v. Donovan (1905) 188 Mass. 353, 74 N.…
-
Burris v. Morton F. Plant Hosp., 204 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…pursuant to defendant’s conduct of its business affairs, the defendant enjoys a presumption of lack of malice. To overcome this presumption, plaintiff had to show that publication of said charges was made with malice. Appell v. Dickinson, Fla.1954, 73 So. 2d 824. The trial judge in granting defendant’s motion for directed verdict stated that he could find no evidence of malice, a reading of the transcript demonstrates that he was correct in his conclusion. Thus, plaintiff has failed to make a prima facie ca…