Brown v. Beckwith

• Decision Date: 01 November 1910
• Citation: 60 Fla. 310,53 So. 542
• Parties: BROWN et al. v. BECKWITH et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

53 So. 542

60 Fla. 310

BROWN et al. v. BECKWITH et al.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

November 1, 1910

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; J. B. Wall, Judge.

Action between Charles H. Brown and others and W. H. Beckwith and others. From an order refusing to dissolve an injunction Brown and others appeal. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

In construing a contract, the leading object is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the parties. To ascertain the real intent, the language used, the subject-matter, and the purpose designed may be considered.

When the purpose designed to be accomplished by a contract is ascertained, the meaning and effect given to the language used should comport with the intended purpose.

While ambiguous language is to be construed against the person using it, yet it should be given the meaning and effect that will be in accord with the object in view.

The real intention as disclosed by a fair consideration of all parts of a contract should control the meaning of mere words when the words have reference to the main purpose.

Where the main purpose of a contract is for the conveyance of timbered land, subject to a reservation of 'the right to box, chip, and turpentine all of said lands for a period of four years from the date of the boxing of the same,' and to limit the time within which the boxing should be done, and the time beyond which the trees should not be used at all by the vendor, subsequent agreements extending the time 'within which to complete said turpentine operations' and 'to work said timber,' and 'for boxing and working the timber,' have reference to the ultimate expiration of the reservation, and do not affect the original provision that the turpentining of trees shall cease 'four years from the date of the boxing of the same,' where a contrary intent does not clearly appear.

COUNSEL H. S. Hampton and James F. Glen, for appellants.

Sparkman & Carter, for appellees.

OPINION

WHITFIELD C.J.

This appeal is from an order refusing to dissolve an injunction against chipping, boxing, and turpentining pine trees on certain lands. The sole question is the construction of written instruments under which the parties assert conflicting rights.

In a contract to convey lands, dated February 19, 1906, there was a reservation of 'the right to box, chip, and turpentine all the said lands for a period of four years from the date of the boxing of the same,' and a provision that 'all boxing should be done not later than January, 1909, and that all timber shall be surrendered * * * not latter than January, 1913.' This contract was several times amended as follows: On March 13, 1906: 'It is agreed that, in the event of labor troubles or any unavoidable accident not attributable to the fault of the said O'Neil Turpentine Company, they shall not have fully boxed and turpentined said timbers by January, 1913, they shall have one year longer within which to complete said turpentine operations, and shall turn over all said timber by January, 1914.' November 15, 1907: 'Note. The...