Hawkins v. East Coast Land & Cattle Co.

• Decision Date: 01 June 1951
• Citation: 52 So.2d 800
• Parties: HAWKINS v. EAST COAST LAND & CATTLE CO., Inc.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 800

52 So.2d 800

HAWKINS v. EAST COAST LAND & CATTLE CO., Inc.

Supreme Court of Florida, en Banc.

June 1, 1951.

C. Shelby Dale, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Hamilton & Langbein, Edgar G. Hamilton and Irwin L. Langbein, all of West Palm Beach, for appellees.

Saunders, Buckley & O'Connell and English, Lester & O'Bryan, all of Fort Lauderdale, Landefeld & Kerr, Hollywood, Edward L. Semple, Miami, and Boyd H. Anderson, Jr., Fout Lauderdale, amicus curiae.

TERRELL, Justice.

East Coast Land and Cattle Company, Inc., hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, filed a bill of complaint to quiet its tax title to a large acreage of land in Broward County. R. C. Hawkins and others were named parties defendant and will hereinafter be referred to as defendant since Hawkins was the only one who resisted the bill of complaint. Defendant filed his answer including an amended answer in which he challenged the validity of the plaintiff's tax deed on the ground that the description of the lands therein was vague, indefinite and uncertain. On final hearing the chancellor found for the plaintiff and entered a decree quieting title to its lands. The defendant appealed.

The sole question for determination is whether or not the following description: Tract 30, Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 41 East, 20 acres in the County of Broward, State of Florida, as contained in the plaintiff's tax deed (and in various deeds between individual parties relating thereto) is legally sufficient to identify and locate said land.

Defendant contends that the question so stated is one of law, that the description was patently defective, that it could not be cured or made certain by parol evidence and that the trial court committed error in holding it good. Schouten v. Hunt, 146 Fla. 360, 200 So. 923; Freeland v. P. P. & R. Co., 160 Fla. 151, 33 So.2d 857 and similar cases are relied on to support this contention.

Plaintiff contends on the other hand, that the question is one of fact and relies on the sufficiency of the evidence adduced to support his contention. The plaintiff introduced in evidence plat of the pertinent acreage, including a map showing the portion of Broward County in which the lands are located. The plat and map are supported by four deeds which describe the lands in question with several thousand additional acres without reference to any recorded plat.

The plat, map and deeds are supported by the evidence of seven witnesses who were familiar with land conveyancing and surveys in Broward County, one of whom was the County Engineer who was also a registered engineer, one was an abstractor in Broward County, another was Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County, another was an employee of the Tax Collector's office, two were attorneys of many years experience in the County, another had been in the real estate business in the County for over thirty years and the last one was a landowner familiar with surveys in the County. These witnesses testified, (1) that they could locate the land of the plaintiff from the description in the deed, (2) that there is only one subdivision of this section or area recorded in Broward County and that the description could apply to no other parcel of land, (3) that no one in Broward County could be misled by the description, (4) that said description was not vague or ambiguous, but was clear and certain, (5) that said description was generally understood by lawyers, abstractors, engineers, real estate dealers and others having to do with land titles in Broward County, and that it had been approved and followed by them for more than thirty years, (6) that five per cent of all deeds in the County and 50 per cent of the land in the area had been conveyed by similar description, (7) that in tax certificates, tax receipts, tax deeds and tax rolls lands were described in the same manner, that conveyances by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund and the Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District were made by the same description, that all odd-numbered sections in the area were divided into 32 equal tracts by uniform plan and that all maps used by lawyers, abstractors and real estate men in the County follow the same pattern.

It appears that the lands involved in this litigation with others were purchased by Florida Fruit Land Company, more than 35 years ago. At that time the lands in the Everglades had not been surveyed, but the lands adjacent to the Everglades had been surveyed. Confronted with that situation the Florida Fruit Lands Company provided its own formula for marketing and conveying its lands and in doing so, divided the odd-numbered sections into 32 equal tracts of twenty acres each, more or less. The tracts in each section are numbered in uniform manner, the North and South section lines being divided into four parts and the East and West sections into eight parts. For more than thirty years it has been the practice to convey lands in this area by Tracts, Sections, Township and Range, without naming the Florida Fruit Lands Company subdivision. As heretofore stated, the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund, the Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District and others have conveyed by this formula. It is well known and approved by lawyers, conveyancers and abstractors in Broward County.

It is quite true that the deeds involved in the Freeland and Schouten cases heretofore cited, were in substantially the same form as the deed involved in the case at bar, but they were totally deficient in that...