Camp Phosphate Co. v. Anderson

• Citation: 48 Fla. 226,37 So. 722
• Parties: CAMP PHOSPHATE CO. v. ANDERSON et al.
• Decision Date: 20 December 1904
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Florida

37 So. 722

48 Fla. 226

CAMP PHOSPHATE CO. v. ANDERSON et al.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

December 20, 1904

Appeal from Circuit Court, Citrus County; William S. Bullock, Judge.

Bill by Herbert L. Anderson and Robert L. Anderson against the Camp Phosphate Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

On April 12, 1902, appellee Herbert L. Anderson, as trustee filed his bill against appellant and one Charles Jones seeking partition of certain real estate situated in Citrus county. It was alleged that complainant, as trustee for himself and R. L. Anderson, was the owner of an undivided five-sevenths interest in said land; that the Camp Phosphate Company was the owner of the remaining two-sevenths interest that, 'according to the best knowledge and belief of complainant, the names and places of residence of the several owners, joint tenants, tenants in common, and others interested in the land are R. L. Anderson and H. L. Anderson who reside at Ocala, Florida, Camp Phosphate Company, which is a Florida corporation, and Charles Jones, who resides in Citrus county, Florida'; that Jones' interest, whatever it may be, is held under and in subordination to the right and title of the Camp Phosphate Company; that the United States conveyed the land by patent to Nancy J. Hatcher December 1, 1890; that Nancy J. Hatcher died about May 3, 1891, leaving as her heirs at law her husband, J. J. Hatcher, and Charles D. Hatcher, a son by that marriage, and the following named children of a former marriage, viz., Early L. Clark, Beulha E. Mills, Julia A. Mills, Green M. Clark, and Thomas S. Clark; that Early Clark died about April 4, 1892, without issue, and leaving no father or mother surviving, and that upon his death his undivided interest in the land descended to his brothers and sisters; that about October 24, 1900, Beulha E. Mills, Julia A. Mills, Green M. Clark, and Thomas S. Clark conveyed all their several interests in the land to J. D. Stalvey; that about November 12, 1900, Stalvey and wife conveyed the same to J. W. Hicks; that about November 2, 1900, Hicks conveyed all his interest in the land to complainant, as appears upon the public records of Citrus county, where all said conveyances are recorded; that J. J. Hatcher and Charles D. Hatcher conveyed their several interests as such heirs of Nancy J. Hatcher in and to said lands to the Camp Phosphate Company; that complainant is in possession of said lands, or a portion thereof, claiming title to said fivesevenths undivided interest under the said heirs of Nancy J. Hatcher, and that the Camp Phosphate Company is also in possession of a portion of said property, claiming title thereto under the said Charles D. Hatcher and J. J. Hatcher, heirs of said Nancy J. Hatcher, deceased. The bill was subsequently amended, but, as the amendment merely seeks an injunction restraining defendants from interfering with the possession of complainant, it is not deemed necessary to set it forth at length.

The defendant, Camp Phosphate Company, demurred to the bill, the grounds of demurrer being: (1) The residence of the defendant is not stated.

(2) The bill does not aver seisin in fee or legal title in complainant, the averment of ownership being a mere conclusion of law.

(3) The bill does not aver the requisite possession for partition.

(4) The bill does not aver what estate complainant represents as trustee, nor the character and nature of the trust.

(5) It appears from the bill that R. L. Anderson is a necessary defendant.

(6) The bill does not allege facts showing the nature of the estate owned by the complainant or defendant, or whether the estate is legal or equitable.

(7) The bill does not state any facts entitling complainant to maintain it.

(8) The bill is without equity.

The demurrer was overruled. Thereafter defendant filed its answer denying that complainant is the owner of an undivided fivesevenths interest in the land described in the bill, alleging that complainant has no legal interest in said property as alleged; admitting that the property was patented to Nancy J. Hatcher by the United States; that Nancy J. Hatcher was the wife of J. J. Hatcher, and had formerly been the wife of Thomas Clark, who died in 1885; that Nancy J. Hatcher died, leaving as heirs the parties named in the bill; that Early L. Clark died without issue, so that his interest as heir of Nancy J. Hatcher descended to his brothers and sisters; denying that any of the parties named as heirs of Nancy J. Hatcher were entitled to any interest in the land, for the reason that Nancy J. Hatcher and her husband, prior to her death, in the year 1890, executed a warranty deed of conveyance, by which she conveyed the property to the Anglo-American Phosphate Company; alleging that the Anglo-American Phosphate Company still holds the title, and has never conveyed same to any person whomsoever; denying that complainant was in possession of the lands, or any portion thereof, at the time the suit was instituted; alleging that at the commencement of the suit, and for several years prior thereto, the defendant was in possession of the land, having a portion of same under fence, cultivating and using the balance for wood and other purposes, claiming title thereto adversely to all persons whomsoever under and by virtue of a deed of conveyance from one Daniel Clark and Walter Ray made August 29, 1898; that Clark and Ray had held possession of the land several years adversely to all persons under a deed of conveyance from the state of Florida made in February, 1898; that the deeds mentioned were adverse to the title under which complainant claims. The defendant insisted in the answer that the title so claimed by it could not be settled in a court of equity by bill for partition, but must be settled by an action at law in which it would be entitled to a jury trial. The answer also alleges that the defendant, 'in order to strengthen the title already obtained by it, purchased whatever right, title, or interest Joseph J. Hatcher had in and to the said property'; that defendant also purchased whatever interest the said Thomas S. Clark had in the property described for the same purpose; that one W. N. Camp purchased the right, title, and interest of Charles D. Hatcher, one of the parties named as heirs of Nancy J. Hatcher, at a commissioner's sale of the property, and has never conveyed his interest to any person whomsoever; that defendant Charles Jones had no interest in the property, but is in possession of same merely as agent for the Camp Phosphate Company. The answer also alleges that Beuhla E. Mills never executed a deed conveying her interest in the property separate and apart from her husband, she being a married woman, and that the deeds of conveyance executed by G. M. Clark, Julia A. Mills, and Beuhla E. Mills were procured in consequence of certain fraudulent representations on the part of the agents of Stalvey, the grantee, particularly set forth in the answer.

The complainant filed his replication to this answer and his praecipe for dismissal of the bill as against the defendant Jones. Testimony was taken by both parties, and the cause came on for hearing, at which the court made an order August 1, 1903, which, after stating that objection was made in argument that R. L. Anderson was not a party to the suit, made him a party complainant; and on the same day R. L. Anderson filed hi waiver of any right to plead, introduce testimony, or take any further proceeding as to pleadings or evidence, and filed a document adopting the allegations of all pleadings of complainant and the evidence, and asking that the court proceed to final hearing upon the pleadings and proofs as they stood.

The defendant moved the court to remand the cause to rules to enable it to file such pleadings as it might be advised was necessary by reason of the presence of the new party complainant. This motion was denied, and on August 3, 1903 the court overruled certain objections to testimony interposed by defendant, and entered a decree that the equities of the cause were with complainants; that H. L. Anderson, as trustee, for himself and R. L. Anderson, was the owner of an undivided five-sevenths interest in the land described in the bill, and was entitled to partition of same; that the defendant was the owner of an undivided one-seventh interest in the same land: that the right, title, and interest of said defendant as to the remaining one-seventh interest be left for such future adjudication in the cause as the interest or title of said defendant or of W. N. Camp therein might be shown to exist or be decreed by the court thereafter, it appearing that the legal title to such interest is in W. N. Camp, while the equitable title is in the defendant. The decree also appointed commissioners to make partition of the lands therein decreed according to law, adjudged the costs between the parties, and continued the cause for such further orders and proceedings as might be necessary for the purpose of carrying out the decree. The commissioners appointed under this decree made their report that partition could not be made without great prejudice to the owners of the property. The defendant filed objections to this report, which were overruled, and an order entered confirming the report, on September 12, 1903. On September 18, 1903, the court entered an order reciting the report of the commissioners and its confirmation, and decreeing the sale of the property by the commissioners upon terms and conditions therein named. From this last decree the present appeal was entered by the defendant. There are fifty-one assignments of error, three of which are based upon the decree appealed from, while the others question the propriety...