Buesing v. Forbes
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | [33 Fla. 496] MABRY, J. |
| Citation | 33 Fla. 495,15 So. 209 |
| Decision Date | 01 May 1894 |
| Parties | BUESING v. FORBES. |
15 So. 209
33 Fla. 495
BUESING
v.
FORBES.
Florida Supreme Court
May 1, 1894
Appeal from circuit court, Duval county; James M. Baker, Judge.
Ejectment by John M. Forbes against August Buesing. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
SYLLABUS
1. Where a surveyor would have no difficulty in locating the land sued for in an action of ejectment, from the description given in the declaration, such description is sufficient.
2. A plea in an action of ejectment setting up nothing, as a defense, of which the defendant could not avail himself under the plea of 'not guilty,' may be stricken out by the court on motion.
3. The effect of 'not guilty,' standing alone, under section 3, c. 3244, Laws 1881, is to admit possession by the defendant; and if the defendant desires to defend on the ground that he is not in possession, or, in case of adverse claimant, that he does not occupy adversely, it must be done by special plea. The two pleas are not inconsistent with each other, and may be filed together in the same action; and it is error for the court to refuse the defendant the right to do so, when desired. [15 So. 210]
COUNSEL
[33 Fla. 495] A. W. Cockrell & Son, for appellant.
W. B. Young, for appellee.
OPINION
[33 Fla. 496] MABRY, J.
The action is ejectment. Forbes, as plaintiff in the circuit court, obtained judgment; and Buesing, the defendant there, appealed.
A demurrer to the declaration was overruled, and this ruling is assigned as error. It is insisted here that the description of the lot of land sued for is not sufficient. The declaration is the ordinary one filed in actions of ejectment, and the lot is described as a certain parcel of land 'situate, lying, and being in the county of Duval, and state of Florida, and known and described as beginning at a stake at the southwest corner of a fence of said Buesing, which stake is north, 10 degrees E., 230 feet from a stake which stands 118 feet east of the southeast corner of lot 2 in fractional section 22, township 2 south, range 26 east; thence north, 13 degrees east, 468 feet, to a stake; thence south, 87 degrees east, 214 feet; thence south, 13 degrees west, 468 feet, to a corner of said Buesing's fence; thence north, 87 degrees west, 214 feet, to the place of beginning,--containing one and three-tenths acres.' This description is sufficient. Guided by it, a surveyor would have no difficulty whatever in locating the land.
The defendant filed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoodless v. Jernigan
...v. Bellamy's Adm'r, 6 Fla. 62; 2 Devlin on Deeds (2d Ed.) § 1010, and numerous authorities cited in note. Also see Buesing v. Forbes, 33 Fla. 495, 15 So. 209. A careful examination of the deed in question discloses that the description therein is so vague and indefinite that a surveyor woul......
-
Mckinnon v. Johnson
...24, text 28; Neal v. Spooner, 20 Fla. 38; Horne v. Carter's Adm'rs, 20 Fla. 45; Barco v. Fennell, 24 Fla. 378, 5 So. 9; Buesing v. Forbes, 33 Fla. 495, 15 So. 209; Parkhurst v. Stone, 36 Fla. 456, text 462, 18 So. 594, text 595; Camp v. Hall, 39 Fla. 535, 22 So. 792; Little v. Bradley, 43 F......
-
Phillips v. Lowenstein
...and admitted possession by the defendant. Section 3236, Rev. Gen. Stats.; Petty v. Mays, 19 Fla. 652; Buesing v. Forbes, 18 So. 209, 33 Fla. 495; Walters v. Sheffield, 78 So. 539, 75 Fla. 505, text 513. A jury was waived, and the cause was tried by the court. By stipulation 'it is admitted ......
-
Tripp v. Wade
...31 So. 342; Camp & Bros. v. Hall, 39 Fla. 535, 22 So. 792; Parkhurst v. Stone and Gove, 36 Fla. 456, 18 So. 594; Buesing v. Forbes, 33 Fla. 495, 15 So. 209; Davis v. Shuler, 14 Fla. 438. By the second plea to the first count defendant sets up a contract different in its terms from the c......
-
Hoodless v. Jernigan
...v. Bellamy's Adm'r, 6 Fla. 62; 2 Devlin on Deeds (2d Ed.) § 1010, and numerous authorities cited in note. Also see Buesing v. Forbes, 33 Fla. 495, 15 So. 209. A careful examination of the deed in question discloses that the description therein is so vague and indefinite that a surveyor woul......
-
Mckinnon v. Johnson
...24, text 28; Neal v. Spooner, 20 Fla. 38; Horne v. Carter's Adm'rs, 20 Fla. 45; Barco v. Fennell, 24 Fla. 378, 5 So. 9; Buesing v. Forbes, 33 Fla. 495, 15 So. 209; Parkhurst v. Stone, 36 Fla. 456, text 462, 18 So. 594, text 595; Camp v. Hall, 39 Fla. 535, 22 So. 792; Little v. Bradley, 43 F......
-
Phillips v. Lowenstein
...and admitted possession by the defendant. Section 3236, Rev. Gen. Stats.; Petty v. Mays, 19 Fla. 652; Buesing v. Forbes, 18 So. 209, 33 Fla. 495; Walters v. Sheffield, 78 So. 539, 75 Fla. 505, text 513. A jury was waived, and the cause was tried by the court. By stipulation 'it is admitted ......
-
Tripp v. Wade
...31 So. 342; Camp & Bros. v. Hall, 39 Fla. 535, 22 So. 792; Parkhurst v. Stone and Gove, 36 Fla. 456, 18 So. 594; Buesing v. Forbes, 33 Fla. 495, 15 So. 209; Davis v. Shuler, 14 Fla. 438. By the second plea to the first count defendant sets up a contract different in its terms from the c......