Florida Land Inv. Co. v. Williams

Decision Date31 July 1922
Citation84 Fla. 157,92 So. 876
PartiesFLORIDA LAND INV. CO. v. WILLIAMS et al.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Rehearing Denied Aug. 19, 1922.

Error to Circuit Court, Duval County; George Couper Gibbs, Judge.

Action by the Florida Land Investment Company against Lucy R Williams and husband. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.

Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Original records in one judicial proceeding not inadmissible to prove their contents in another. Original copies of records in one judicial proceeding are not inadmissible as evidence to prove their contents in another such proceeding.

Documents admitted in evidence, not incorporated into but referred to by the bill, considered. Documents admitted and received in evidence in the trial of a cause, not incorporated into but so referred to in the duly authenticated bill of exceptions and so designated that there can be no doubt of their identity, and which are considered by all parties to the litigation as a part of the bill of exceptions and accompany the record here, will be considered by this court as a part of the bill of exceptions as contained in the transcript of the record.

Title acquired by mortgagor after executing mortgage inures to mortgagee's benefit. Where a mortgage upon real estate contains full covenants of warranty, title acquired to the mortgaged property by the mortgagor after the execution of the mortgage inures to the benefit of the mortgagee.

Rule that after-acquired title inures to mortgagee's benefit is subject to exception in case of purchase-money mortgages. To the rule announced in the immediately preceding headnote there is the generally recognized exception of purchase-money mortgages given as a part of the transaction in which the premises mortgaged are purchased.

COUNSEL

Charles E. Pelot and L. S. Gaulden, both of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.

Charles A. Powers and Herbert L. Anderson, both of Jacksonville, for defendants in error.

OPINION

WEST J.

This is an action of ejectment in which plaintiff in error, as plaintiff below, sued defendants in error to recover possession of certain lots of land in Duval county. The declaration is in the statutory form. There was a plea of not guilty and certain special pleas, which upon motion to strike were eliminated. Upon a trial there was a directed verdict for defendants. To review the judgment plaintiff prosecutes writ of error from this court. By appropriate assignments of error the propriety of the rulings directing a verdict for defendants and denying plaintiff's motion for new trial are presented for consideration.

The original record in a mortgage foreclosure suit between the same parties and involving the same property was offered and admitted in evidence. This court has held that original judicial records are admissible to prove their contents. Huddleston v. Graham, 73 Fla. 350, 74 So. 414. This record was not copied into the bill of exceptions, but accompanied the transcript of the record here somewhat in the nature of an exhibit. It is considered by counsel for both parties as a part of the bill of exceptions and is sufficiently identified to be so considered by this court. Florida Land Inv. Co. v. Williams (Fla.) 91 So. 177; Exporters of Mfrs. Products v Butterworth-Judson Co., 257 U.S. ----, 42 S.Ct. 331, 66 L.Ed. ----.

The facts are simple. Upon essential points they are undisputed. Plaintiff's title to the property upon which it relies is deraigned by mesne conveyances from the original source of title. In addition to this chain of title, it was proved in substance at the tiral that the plaintiff, on November 8 1913, bought the property from Frank T. Nooney and wife, who conveyed same to it by warranty deed; that plaintiff contemporaneously therewith, and as a part of the same transaction, executed to Nooney a mortgage containing the usual covenants of warranty to secure the payment of a portion of the purchase price agreed to be paid by it for the property;...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Robinson-Shore Development Co. v. Gallagher
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • February 3, 1958
    ...Bloodgood, 32 N.J.Eq. 209 (Ch.1880); Shreve v. Harvey, 74 N.J.Eq. 336, 337, 70 A. 671 (Ch.1908); Florida Land Investment Co. v. Williams, 84 Fla. 157, 92 So. 876, 26 A.L.R. 171 (Sup.Ct.1922); Randall v. Lower, 98 Ind. 255 (Sup.Ct.1884); Butterfield v. Lane, 114 Me. 333, 96 A. 233 (Sup.Jud.C......
  • Pitts v. Pastore
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 5, 1990
    ...acquired by the mortgagor, after the execution of the mortgage, to inure to the benefit of the mortgagee. Fla. Land Inv. Co. v. Williams, 84 Fla. 157, 92 So. 876 (1922). We believe that the salutary purposes of article X, section 4, Florida Constitution (1968), can be fully achieved if the ......
  • Merchants National Bank of Fargo, a Corp. v. Miller
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • February 18, 1930
    ... ... purchase money mortgage. Florida Land Invest. Co. v ... Williams (Fla.) 92 So. 876, 26 A.L.R. 171, note ... ...
  • BCML Holding LLC v. Wilmington Trust, N.A.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 24, 2015
    ...lack of ownership by Gonzalo Malesich of the Property at the time of execution and delivery of the Mortgage. See, Florida Land Co. v. Williams, 84 Fla. 157, 92 So. 876 (1922) ; Walters v. Merchants & Manufacturers Bank of Ellisville, 218 Miss. 777, 67 So.2d 714 (1953) ; Cook v. Katiba, 152 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT