Barrs v. State

• Decision Date: 14 January 1926
• Citation: 91 Fla. 30,107 So. 249
• Parties: BARRS, Judge v. STATE ex rel. JACKSONVILLE REALTY & MORTGAGE CO.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

107 So. 249

91 Fla. 30

BARRS, Judge v. STATE ex rel. JACKSONVILLE REALTY & MORTGAGE CO.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

January 14, 1926

Error to Circuit Court, Duval County; Daniel A. Simmons, Judge.

Prohibition by the State, on the relation of the Jacksonville Realty &amp Mortgage Company, against Burton Barrs, Judge of the Civil Court of Record in and for Duval County. To review a judgment directing defendant to dismiss a certain case, defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Civil courts of record held not to have jurisdiction of action involving title or boundaries of real estate (Const. art. 5 §§ 1, 11; Acts 1921, c. 8521). Civil courts of record have not jurisdiction of action involving the title or boundaries of real estate.

On filing pleading or introduction of evidence in civil court of record putting in issue title or boundaries of real estate court should dismiss cause for want of jurisdiction by order giving the reason (Acts 1915, c. 6904; Acts 1921, c. 8521; Const. art. 5, §§ 1, 11). When any pleading is filed which puts in issue the title or boundaries of real estate, or when any evidence is lawfully introduced which shows that either of such questions is involved, in a cause pending in a civil court of record, it thereupon becomes the duty of the court to enter an order dismissing such cause for want of further jurisdiction setting forth in order the reason appearing for making the same.

Order dismissing case from civil court of record, because it involved title or boundaries of land, properly pleaded estops denial that such question is involved in case in circuit court on same cause of action. When a case shll have been dismissed from civil court of record on the ground that such case involves the title or boundaries of real estate, such order of court so dismissing such case, when properly pleaded, will estop the defendant from denying that such question is involved in a case brought in the circuit court on the same cause of action.

COUNSEL

William Harwick, of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.

Kay, Adams & Ragland, of Jacksonville, for defendant in error.

OPINION

BUFORD J.

This is a writ of error to the circuit court of Duval county, Fla, to review a judgment thereof in the proceedings by way of writ of prohibition to the civil court of record of Duval county, Fla., prohibiting the said court from proceeding further in the action therein pending, wherein one William S. Slaton is plaintiff and Jacksonville Realty & Mortgage Company, a corporation, is the defendant, and directing such court to make an order dismissing the cause.

The record shows that in a cause pending in the civil court of record of Duval county Fla., on the 21st day of January, 1920, the plaintiff filed his amended declaration in the following language:

'William S. Slaton, plaintiff, by William H. Harwick, his attorney, sues the Jacksonville Realty & Mortgage Company, a corporation, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Florida, defendant, in a plea of trespass for that the defendant, on, to wit, the 1st day of January, 1919, and on divers other days between that date and the commencement of this suit, in the county aforesaid, with force and arms and a multitude of people, broke and entered the premises of plaintiff there situated, to wit, that certain piece, parcel, or tract of land, situate in said county of Duval, state of Florida, described as follows: Beginning at a point 886 feet north of the southeast corner of lot 2, section 2, township 2, south of range 26 east, running thence west 384 feet, thence north 167 feet, thence west 327 feet, thence south 194 feet to the north line of the right of way of Atlantic Coast Line Railway, formerly the Atlantic, Valdosta & Western Railway Company, thence easterly along the side line along said east line of said lot 2, thence north along said east line of said lot 2 to the place of beginning; and then and there broke down and destroyed the fence around the same of the value of $500, and laid open the said premises so that the same was trespassed upon by animals to the damage of $500, and caused to be erected buildings on said land and kept and used portions of said land for its own use and benefit, and hindered and delayed the plaintiff from using the same in such manner as he might have done, wherefore plaintiff claims damages in the sum of $1,000.

'(2) And for a second count to said declaration plaintiff avers each and every the allegations of the first count, and further avers that each and every the aforesaid acts and doings of defendant were done wantonly, willfully and maliciously, wherefore plaintiff claims damages in the sum of $1,000.'

To which declaration the defendant filed four pleas as follows:

'Comes now the defendant in the above-entitled cause by its attorney, Kay, Adams & Ragland, and for pleas to plaintiff's amended declaration herein says:

'(1) For a first plea, that it is not guilty.

'(2) For a second plea, that the alleged premises were not at the time of the alleged wrongs in the possession of the plaintiff.

'(3) For a third plea, the defendant says that at the time of the acts complained of in the said amended declaration, the alleged premises was not the property of the plaintiff, but was the property of the defendant.

'(4) For the fourth plea, this defendant says that shortly after this defendant acquired title to the property upon which the alleged acts were committed, the plaintiff, by agreement with the defendant, provided for the opening up of a street separating the lands of the plaintiff from those...