195 So. 195 (Fla. 1940), Sickler v. Indian River Abstract & Guaranty Co.

Citation:195 So. 195, 142 Fla. 528
Opinion Judge:CHAPMAN, Justice.
Attorney:[142 Fla. 529]John S. Byington, of Daytona Beach, for plaintiffs in error. Crofton & Wilson, of Titusville, for defendant in error.
Judge Panel:TERRELL, C.J., and THOMAS, J., not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Case Date:April 02, 1940
Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Page 195

195 So. 195 (Fla. 1940)

142 Fla. 528

SICKLER et al.



Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

April 2, 1940

Error to Circuit Court, Brevard County; M. B. Smith, Judge.

Action by Florence P. Sickler and others, as executors under the last will and testament of A. H. Sickler, deceased, against the Indian River Abstract & Guaranty Company to recover damages for negligence in making or certifying an abstract of title. To review an adverse judgment, plaintiffs bring error.



Page 196

[142 Fla. 529]John S. Byington, of Daytona Beach, for plaintiffs in error.

Crofton & Wilson, of Titusville, for defendant in error.


CHAPMAN, Justice.

This case is here for review on writ of error taken to a final judgment entered in behalf of the defendant below by the trial court upon sustaining a demurrer interposed by the defendant to three counts of plaintiffs' amended declaration. The final judgment was entered when plaintiffs declined to amend further their amended declaration. The suit was brought in the name of the Executors under the last Will and Testament of A. H. Sickler, deceased.

Count 1 of the amended declaration in substance alleges [142 Fla. 530] that the defendant was an abstracter and made abstracts to lands in Brevard County, Florida, and made an abstract to certain lands described in the amended declaration for the Melbourne Steam Laundry, and that this concern turned the abstract so made over to A. H. Sickler for the purpose of examination, and that Sickler, relying upon the abstract, loaned a large sum of money thereon to Melbourne Steam Laundry and took its mortgage; that the abstract did not contain or set forth the fact of record of a pre-existing mortgage on the land in the principal sum of $10,000, which was of record in the public records of Brevard County, Florida, and by reason of the neglect and omission to include this said mortgage in the abstract made by the defendant, the loan and investment made by Sickler was lost and rendered of no use or value; that the loss sustained is shown by the Bill of Particulars, which was the principal, interest and solicitor's fees of the omitted mortgage and totaling $14,329.

Count 2 of the amended declaration contains substantially the same allegations as Count 1. The theory of defendant's liability is for an injury that may result from a failure to exercise ordinary care and skill in discovering in the records and noting in the abstract all deeds and mortgages

Page 197


To continue reading