Crosby v. Andrews

• Decision Date: 12 April 1911
• Citation: 55 So. 57,61 Fla. 554
• Parties: CROSBY et ux. v. ANDREWS et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

55 So. 57

61 Fla. 554

CROSBY et ux. v. ANDREWS et al.

Florida Supreme Court

April 12, 1911

In Banc. Appeal from Circuit Court, Escambia County; B. H Palmer, Judge pro hac.

Suit by James W. Andrews and others against L. G. Crosby and wife. From an interlocutory order overruling defendants' demurrer to the complaint, they appeal. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Where a bill of complaint states a case for any equitable relief, a demurrer thereto is properly overruled.

A deed of conveyance may be rescinded or canceled for a negligent mistake of fact that is unilateral where the negligence is not a breach of legal duty, and the mistake is material and made under circumstances that render it inequitable for the other party to have the benefit thereof, even though he did not by commission or omission contribute to the mistake, and the parties were dealing at arm's length and on equal footing.

Where the grantors in a deed of conveyance carelessly included in such deed land they had no authority to convey, and the geantee, with whom the geantors were dealing at arm's length and on equal footing, reasonably should have known that the grantors had no authority to convey and did not intend to convey the land carelessly included in the deed and, upon discovering the mistake before irreparable injury to the grantee has resulted, the grantors promptly offer to do equity, there is ground for equitable relief by cancellation.

COUNSEL Jones & Pasco and Reeves & Watson, for appellants.

Blount & Blount & Carter, for appellees.

OPINION

This is an appeal by the defendants in the court below from an interlocutory order overruling their demurrer to the bill of complaint. In view of the contentions made by the respective parties litigant, it seems advisable to set out the pleadings in full, with the exception of the formal parts. The bill which was filed on the 6th day of January, 1910, is as follows:

'The bill of complaint of Jas. W. Andrews, R. F. Favourite, John A. Kirkpatrick, F. E. Brawner, Boykin Jones, A. M McMillan, W. C. Dewberry, W. C. Mackey, Thos. V. Hannah, as trustees, as hereinafter set forth, and A. M. McMillan and Mattie E. McMillan, his wife, complainants, against L. G. Crosby and Jessie E. Crosby, his wife, defendants, alleges:

'(1) That all of the complainants and the defendants are citizens and residents of Escambia county, Fla. That the complainant Mattie E. McMillan is the wife of the said A. M. McMillan, and that the defendant Jessie E. Crosby is the wife of the said L. G. Crosby.

'(2) That on the 12th day of November, A. D. 1894, one Elize Ross conveyed to certain persons as trustees of the Palafox Street Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Pensacola, Fla., and their successors in office, and their assigns forrever much real estate, including the west half of the east half of arpent lot 30 in the old city of Pensacola, Fla.

'(3) That, by the laws and discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, all real estate devised to or acquired by a church community located in any town or village is vested in a certain unorganized body of persons known as trustees and their successors and assigns forever, who may be authorized with the consent of the preacher in charge by a body of said church meeting four times each year, and known as the 'Quarterly Conference,' to sell any real estate belonging to the said local church, but who cannot sell without the authority of the said quarterly conference. By the said laws and discipline, the said west half of the east half of the said arpent lot 30 became vested in the trustees then holding office in the said local church and their successors in office subject to sale by them under the direction and authority of the said quarterly conference.

'(4) That on the --- day of -----, A. D. 1903, the said quarterly conference, in a regular meeting held in the city of Pensacola, Fla., authorized, with the consent of the preacher in charge, the said trustees of the said church property to sell the north 64 feet of the west half of the east half of arpent lot 30 to A. M. McMillan, the complainant, and thereafter, to wit, on the 15th day of December, A. D. 1903, the trustees of the said church by a due and regular deed, conveying the title to the said lot, sold it to the siad A. M. McMillan, his heirs and assigns, and that the said A. M. McMillan caused the said deed to be recorded duly and validly on the 16th day of December, 1903, in the records of deeds of the clerk of the circuit court, as recorded in book 33, at page 584, of the Records of Escambia county, Fla.

'(5) That on the 24th day of August, 1904, the complainant A. M. McMillan conveyed the said property to E. D. Beggs, who, on the same day, conveyed a life interest in the same to the complainant Mattie E. McMillan, with a remainder over to the said A. M. McMillan, and that on the 5th day of September, A. D. 1907, the complainant, the said A. M. McMillan, conveyed to the said Mattie E. McMillan the remainder left in him, and that thereby, as complainants are advised and believe, that the whole title thereto became vested in the said Mattie E. McMillan. That the said last three mentioned conveyances have never been recorded. That neither the said A. M. McMillan, nor the said Mattie E. McMillan, nor the said E. D. Beggs, have ever executed any deeds to the said property, or to any parts thereof, except as above.

'(6) That immediately upon the receipt of the said deed from the said trustees the said A. M. McMillan fenced in the said property in an inclosure embracing also the north 64 feet of the east half of the west half of the said lot 30 (which said latter parcel, to wit, said 64 feet, had been formerly bought by said complainant) with a high and very obvious fence, and that, since his said acquisition of the said north 64 feet of the west half of the east half, he (and his said wife, since the conveyance of it to her) have been, and still are, in open and notorious possession thereof. The said north 64 feet of the east half of the west half, as well as the north 64 feet of the west half of the east half, and as well as the residence of the said McMillan and his said wife, adjacent to the said lot 30, were embraced in and conveyed by the said three last-mentioned conveyances.

'(7) That on the --- day of -----, A. D. 1906, the said quarterly conference of the said church at a meeting held duly and regularly in the city of Pensacola authorized a committee of said conference to sell the said property, derived, as aforesaid, from the said Ross; the appointment of said committee being as follows, to wit:

”The following committee was appointed to sell the said Ross property, so that the proceeds could be loaned out: Rev. W. Q. Vreeland, A. M. McMillan, J. R. Saunders, and J. N. Andrews.'

'(8) That the defendant L. G. Crosby had for a long time prior to the appointment of the said committee been engaged in the manufacture of soda water on the east half of the west half of the said arpent lot 30, and was well acquainted with the existence of the fence aforesaid, separating the north 64 feet of the west half of the east half, and of the east half of the west half from the remainder of the said lot. That at or about the time of the appointment of the said committee the said L. G. Crosby became desirous of buying the property of the trustees in the said lot 30, and to that end negotiated with J. N. Andrews, one of the committee mentioned in the said appointment hereinbefore set out.

'(9) That thereupon the said Andrews communicated to the other members of the said committee the desire of the said L. G. Crosby and his willingness to pay $1,000 therefor, saying to them that what the said Crosby desired was to buy at the said price the Ross property on Chase street, in the city of Pensacola, belonging to the church. That the only property on Chase street in the said city belonging to the church was the west half of the east half of the said arpent lot 30 aforesaid, less the north 64 feet therefore sold to the said A. M. McMillan, as hereinbefore set forth. That thereupon the said committee authorized him, the said Andrews, to prepare the deed to the said property, and procure the trustees to execute the same, whereupon the said Andrews did prepare a deed to the whole west half of the east half of the said lot 30, and presented it to each of the trustees of the said church then holding the legal title to the said part of the lot not theretofore sold to the said McMillan, saying to each of them substantially that it was to the Ross lot on Chase street, belonging to the church, which the committee aforesaid had been authorized to sell. That, relying upon the said statement, the said trustees, and each of them, omitted to read the description contained in the said deed or to make a verification of the statement of the said Andrews, and therefore executed the said deed.

'(10) That at the time of the execution of the said deed by the said trustees they, and each of them, knew that the board of trustees of the said church had already conveyed to the said A. M. McMillan the north 64 feet of the west half of the east half of the said arpent lot 30, and did not intend to convey to the said Crosby the said north 64 feet, and would not have executed the said deed if they had known that the description therein contained embraced the said north 64 feet, and that they did execute the same only because of their reliance upon the statement of the said J. N. Andrews aforesaid, and that the said committee accepted the offer of the said L. G Crosby, believing and understanding it to be for the west half of the east half of said lot, after excluding therefrom the north 64 feet already theretofore sold to...