Houston v. Mckinney

• Decision Date: 10 December 1907
• Citation: 54 Fla. 600,45 So. 480
• Parties: HOUSTON v. McKINNEY et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

45 So. 480

54 Fla. 600

HOUSTON v. McKINNEY et al.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

December 10, 1907

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; Joseph B. Wall Judge.

Bill by Mary Ann Houston against Joe McKinney and others. Decree for defendants, and complainant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

In coming into a court of equity to get rid of a cloud upon title, the complainant must show, with clearness, accuracy and certainty, the validity of his own title and the invalidity of the title of his opponent. In order to be relieved, and to succeed in a contest of this character, the complainant must do so on the strength of his own title, and not on the weakness of the title of the defendant.

The mere fact that M. H. is the stepdaughter of R. S., deceased does not make her his heir at law. She is not a child of R S., within the meaning of the statute of descent (section 2295, Gen. St. 1906).

The primary sense of 'children' is off-spring, and that is the sense of relationship in which it is ordinarily used when the question of relationship is involved. It cannot be properly held, when found in a statute or contract, to include stepchildren.

COUNSEL G. B. Wells, for appellant.

Victor H. Knight, for appellees.

OPINION

PARKHILL J.

The appellant filed a bill in equity in the circuit court for Hillsborough county on the 4th day of December, 1906, wherein she alleged that one Robert Story was the owner in fee simple of certain real estate described therein; that said Story, the stepfather of complainant, departed this life intestate, on or about July 26, 1904, leaving said complainant his only heir at law, by means whereof she became and now is the owner in fee simple of said premises; and she is now, at the time of the filing of this bill of complaint, in actual possession of the same.

The bill further alleges that the defendants Joe McKinney and his wife, Missie McKinney, Sarah Hardy and her husband, Aaron Hardy, Eliza Varnes and her husband, A. W. Varnes, did on or about the 17th day of March, 1906, as the alleged heirs of Robert Story, convey the said described real estate to one Nellie M. Hall, one of the defendants herein, and that on the same day the said real estate was reconveyed to them in three separate deeds of conveyance by the said Nellie M. Hall.

The bill further alleges that the said Joe and Missie McKinney, Sarah and Aaron Hardy, and Eliza and A. W. Varnes were not, at the time of the execution and delivery of the deed hereinbefore mentioned to Nellie M. Hall, in which they purport to convey to the said Hall an alleged interest in the lands described, seised and possessed of any title or interest whatever in the lands thereby attempted to be conveyed to the said Hall, and were not in the possession of said lands; but, in order to annoy and vex complainant, now set up and claim the title to the said lands, refusing to sue complainant to try title to said premises, and that the deeds of conveyance by McKinney, Hardy, and Varnes to Nellie M. Hall, and the deed by said Hall to McKinney, Hardy, and Varnes, make a cloud upon the title of complainant to the said premises, and tend to depreciate the value and sale thereof. The bill prays that these deeds be set aside, declared void, and canceled as a cloud upon the title of complainant.

The defendant demurred to the bill. The chancellor sustained the demurrer and dismissed the bill. The complainant appeals.

The contention of appellees is that the bill does not show title in the complainant to the real estate described to entitle her to equitable relief. Appellant contends that 'under the provisions of section 2298 of the General Statutes of 1906 a stepchild may inherit property, where all persons contemplated by the rules of descent are lacking.'

In coming into a court of equity to get rid of a legal...