Florida Land Inv. Co. v. Williams
| Decision Date | 17 April 1928 |
| Citation | 116 So. 642,98 Fla. 1258 |
| Parties | FLORIDA LAND INV. CO. v. WILLIAMS et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Duval County; George Couper Gibbs, Judge.
Ejectment by the Florida Land Investment Company against Lucy R Williams and others. A judgment for defendant was reversed on writ of error. 92 So. 876. [1] From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error.
Syllabus by the Court
Purchase-money mortgage is exception to general rule that, where mortgage contains full covenants of warranty, title, acquired by mortgager after execution inures to mortgagee's benefit. A purchase-money mortgage given as a part of the transaction in which the premises were purchased is an exception to the general rule that, where a mortgage contains full covenants of warranty, title acquired by the mortgagor after the execution of the mortgage inures to the benefit of the mortgagee.
Equitable estoppel is proper defense in ejectment; in ejectment evidence supporting equitable estoppel is admissible under plea of not guilty. An equitable estoppel is a proper defense to an action of ejectment in this state and evidence to support it is admissible under the plea of not guilty.
In ejectment, where defendant offers estoppel as defense plaintiff may assert counter estoppel; in ejectment, where defendant sets up estoppel, proof of counter estoppel leaves matter as if neither estoppel had been offered. The rule is well settled that, if the defendant offers an estoppel as his defense, the plaintiff may assert a counter estoppel, and proof of the counter estoppel sets the matter at large; that is to say, one estoppel neutralizes the other, leaving the matter as if neither estoppel had been offered.
In ejectment, in matter of proving estoppel or counter estoppel each party carries on equal responsibility; in ejectment, proof of estoppel or counter estoppel must be clear, convincing and free from reasonable doubt. In the matter of proving the estoppel or the counter estoppel each party carries on equal responsibility. Such proof must be clear, convincing, and free from reasonable doubt.
In ejectment, on conflicting testimony, whether estoppel or counter estoppel is proved is jury question. On conflicting testimony whether the estoppel or the counter estoppel is proven is a question to be determined by the jury.
Party executing purchase-money mortgage, afterward obtaining from another quitclaim deed to perfect its title, held estopped to rely on such deed as against assignee of mortgage who had foreclosed. The estoppel rather than the counter estoppel being proven, it follows that the Florida East Coast Railway was trustee for Nooney and the quitclaim deed from it to Florida Land Investment Company was charged with a trust in favor of Mrs. Williams.
Affirmed.
Charles E. Pelot and George C. Bedell, both of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.
Charles A. Powers, of Jacksonville, Scott M. Loftin, of Miami, and Robert H. Anderson, of Jacksonville, for defendants in error.
Plaintiff in error, as plaintiff below, brought an action of ejectment in the circuit court of Duval county to recover possession of block 121 in Pablo Beach North. The declaration was as prescribed by statute, the plea of not guilty was entered, the issues were submitted to a jury, and a verdict was returned for the defendants. Judgment was entered on the verdict and writ of error was taken to this court.
The record discloses that the Florida Land Investment Company bought the land involved in this cause from F. T. Nooney, November 8, 1913, paying part of the purchase price in cash, and giving Nooney a purchase-money mortgage for the balance. It later developed that Nooney had an imperfect title to said lands, so to perfect the title acquired from Nooney the Florida Land Investment Company on December 26, 1913, bought the title of Florida East Coast Railway Company therein. On March 4, 1915, Nooney assigned his purchase-money mortgage to Lucy R. Williams, defendant in error, who on December 22, 1915, instituted her suit to foreclose the same. Final decree in the foreclosure suit was entered September 20, 1917, and she was put in possession by virtue of a writ of assistance May 28, 1918.
Florida Land Investment Company then brought this action of ejectment, predicating its right to recovery on a perfect record title by mesne conveyances from the United States. Mrs. Williams' defense to this action was that the mortgage given by Florida Land Investment Company to Nooney and assigned to her contained full covenants of warranty and that the subsequently acquired title from the Florida East Coast Railway Company inured to her benefit and was acquired by her through the foreclosure proceedings. As against Mrs. Williams, Florida Land Investment Company contended that the outstanding and paramount title held by the Florida East Coast Railway Company and purchased by it was not covered by the warranties of the purchase-money mortgage from Nooney.
Judgment in favor of Mrs. Williams was rendered, which on writ of error to this court was reversed on the ground that the mortgage being a purchase-money mortgage given as a part of the transaction in which the premises were purchased was an exception to the general rule that, where a mortgage contains full covenants of warranty, title acquired by the mortgagor after the execution of the mortgage inures to the benefit of the mortgagee. Florida Land Investment Co. v. Williams, 84 Fla. 157, 92 So. 876, 26 A. L. R. 171.
The mandate from this court went down in due course and a new trial was had, resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of Mrs. Williams, to which the instant writ of error was taken.
On the second trial Mrs. Williams' defense was predicated on an equitable estoppel extracted from the following statement of facts:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Intertype Corporation v. Pulver
...set at large, one estoppel neutralizing the other, leaving the matter as if neither estoppel had been offered. Florida Land Inv. Co. v. Williams, 98 Fla. 1258, 116 So. 642; Branson v. Wirth, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 32, 21 L. Ed. In determining, however, whether or not the plaintiff has elected an ......
-
Sorenson v. Pyeatt
... ... As effecting title to land, equitable estoppel is a doctrine by which a party may be prevented from ... Fla. Land Inv. Co. v. Williams, ... Page 1180 ... 98 Fla. 1258, 116 So. 642 (1928) ... ...
-
Trustees of Internal Imp. Fund v. Lobean
...not concerned with the language of the instrument and may actually deny the legal effect of the deed. In Florida Land Investment Co. v. Williams, 1928, 98 Fla. 1258, 116 So. 642, 643, this court said: 'An equitable estoppel, as affecting land titles, is a doctrine by which a party is preven......
-
Wiggins v. Lykes Bros., Inc.
...take a position in which the assertion of the legal title would be contrary to equity and good conscience.' Florida Land Investment Co. v Williams, 98 Fla. 1258, 116 So. 642, 643; Hagan v. Ellis, 39 Fla. 463, 22 So. 727. But the difficulty is that we can detect no way in which appellant has......