Hughes v. Hannah

• Decision Date: 14 April 1897
• Citation: 39 Fla. 365,22 So. 613
• Parties: HUGHES et al. v. HANNAH et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

22 So. 613

39 Fla. 365

HUGHES et al. v. HANNAH et al.

Florida Supreme Court

April 14, 1897

Appeal from circuit court, Washington county; W. D. Barnes, Judge.

Bill by John F. Hughes, Sr., and others, against Thomas Hannah and others. Bill dismissed, and complainants appeal. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. The right of trial by jury in proceedings according to the course of the common law, as shown and practiced at the time of the organization of our state government, and continued or guarantied by the third section of the bill of rights of the constitution of 1885, has reference to legal rights and contentions, and not to equitable demands, enforced in a court of chancery, whether pertaining to the original or concurrent jurisdiction of that court.

2. The legislature can modify or expand the powers of the court of chancery as to its entire filed of recognized jurisdiction provided such modification or expansion does not impair rights guarantied by the constitution.

3. The legislature may create new rights unknown to the common law and make provision for their determination in the absence of a jury, without violating the constitutional guaranty of trial by jury; but the mere change in the form of an action will not authorize the submission of common-law rights to a court in which no provision is made to secure a jury trial.

4. Actions for the recovery of real property, including damages for its detention, have always been at law; and courts of chancery have refused to entertain suits for such purpose on the ground of a want of jurisdiction. This has been the rule where there was no equitable element in the case, and the court of chancery had no right, by virtue of its general or concurrent jurisdiction, to assume control of the case in any aspect.

5. Act 1889, c. 3884, entitled 'An act to extend the powers of the courts of chancery in this state,' should be enforced so far as it can be done, consistent with the limitations of the constitution.

6. A bill was filed by four complainants against twenty-seven defendants, the complainants claiming to own certain described lands by inheritance from heirs of a common ancestor. Two of the complainants claimed to inherit an undivided half interest in the land from one of said heirs and the other complainants asserted ownership of the other undivided interest by inheritance from the other heir. The bill states that a deed made in alleged pursuance of a tax sale of the lands for nonpayment of taxes was executed and delivered by the county clerk to one of the defendants, who asserted title under the same to a portion of said lands, and that he had made many deeds to many portions of the lands to other defendants named, and that the defendants holding by numerous mesne conveyances from the grantee in the tax deed or his grantees, assert title under said deed to portions of the lands, and were in possession thereof, and refused to surrender the same to complainants; that complainants' title to the lands was denied by defendants, who claim that their title under the tax deed was good, but that they had in fact no good title to, or right of possession of, said lands; and the tax deed is alleged to be void on various grounds stated. Held: (1) That under the former adjudications of this court, independent of Act 1889, c. 3884, no ground of equitable interference was shown; (2) that defendants, being in possession of different portions of the lands, asserting title under an independent source from that of complainants, had a constitutional right to have their claims tried by a jury, and that the provisions of the act of 1889 could not deprive them of this right.

COUNSEL

William Fisher and Blount & Blount, for appellants.

D. L. McKinnon, for appellees.

In November, 1889, appellants filed a bill against appellees, 27 in number, and, as amended, it alleges in substance as follows: In 1835 one James Watson entered lots 1, 2, and 3 in section 1, township 4, range 15 S. and W situated in Washington county, Fla., containing 245.04 acres, for which he received a patent in April, 1837. That Watson died intestate, leaving a widow, Caroline Watson, and two children, Fanny and Rebecca, all of whom have died. That complainant John F. Hughes, Sr., married Rebecca, and they had but one child, complainant John F. Hughes, Jr., and these complainants were the owners in fee of Rebecca's share, to wit, one undivided half interest in said land, and were entitled to the possession of the same.

Fanny Watson married one W. B. Wynn, who has died, and they left as issue only the complainants William B. Wynn and Margaret Frances Tucker, who are the owners in fee of the share of Fanny Watson, to wit, one undivided one-half of said land, and were entitled to the possession thereof.

That in October, 1875, the county clerk of Washington county executed and delivered to Thomas Hannah a deed to said real estate, together with other real estate, said deed having been made by said clerk in alleged pursuance of the tax sale of lands held in said county on the 3d day of August, 1874, for nonpayment of taxes alleged to be assessed and due thereon to the state of Florida and county of Washington, a copy of said deed, being attached and made a part of the bill. That said tax deed was and is invalid, and passed no title to said land to Thomas Hannah, because of certain defects particularly specified, and which are not here stated; it being sufficient to state that the defects alleged, if true, are sufficient to invalidate the tax deed. Further, that Thomas Hannah himself asserts title under said tax deed to portions of said tract of land, and had made many deeds to many portions of the said tract; and that the persons hereinafter named, holding by numerous mesne conveyances from Hannah or his grantees, assert title under said tax deed to portions of said tract, and were in possession of portions thereof, and claim said title to be good, and that the title of complainants to said tract was not good, and refuse to deliver possession of the said portions held by them to complainants. That said persons have no title to or right of possession of the said portions of land by virtue of said tax deed or otherwise. That complainants are informed that the portions so claimed are described, respectively, as follows: (Here the names of certain of the defendants and lots or portions of the described tract of land alleged to be possessed and claimed by them are set out in detail; and, as to certain other defendants named, including Hannah, it is alleged that complainants were not informed of the exact bounds of the portions of said tract claimed or held by them, and discovery as to such matters was prayed in the form of specific interrogatories.)

The prayer of the bill is that the said tax deed to Thomas Hannah be declared to be null and inoperative to convey any title to him, and to be a cloud upon the title of complainants, and that it be delivered up and canceled; that complainants be decreed to have title to, and right of possession of, the respective pieces of land in said tract claimed by defendants respectively; and that they have no title thereto, and it be decreed that they deliver up possession of said respective portions held by them to complainants, and, in default thereof, that the court put complainants in possession thereof.

The bill was demurred to on the following grounds: (1) There is no equity in the bill. (2) Complainants have a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law. (3) The bill is vague, indefinite, and uncertain. (4) The bill does not allege that either the complainants or those through whom they claim were seised or possessed of the land within seven years before the commencement of this suit, or that title had been derived from the state of Florida or the United States within that period. One of the defendants added the further ground that the bill was multifarious. This demurrer was overruled, and answers filed, and, after testimony taken, the bill was dismissed on final hearing.

Complainants appealed, and appellees insist that the demurrer was improperly overruled.

A further statement of the case is unnecessary, in view of the conclusion reached.

OPINION

MABRY, J. (after stating the facts).

A demurrer to the original bill filed in this case was overruled, and the complainants filed an amended bill, to which defendants demurred. After the demurrer to the amended bill was overruled, answers were filed, and on final hearing, upon the pleadings and proofs, the bill was dismissed. An appeal was entered from the order overruling the demurrer to the original bill, but, as the case proceeded in the lower court upon the amended bill, we dispose of it here under such bill, without reference to the original bill and demurrer thereto.

The bill was filed after the passage of Act 1889, c. 3884, and as is evident, predicated complainants' right to relief upon that act. Under the demurrer to the bill, it is insisted that the court of chancery had no jurisdiction of the case independent of the act of 1889, the defendants being in possession of the land, holding adversely, under claim of title, and the remedy at law being adequate, and that it was not competent for the legislature to confer jurisdiction upon a court of equity, and thereby deprive defendants of the right of trial by jury, guarantied to them by the third section of the bill of rights in the constitution, providing that 'the right of trial by jury shall be secured to all, and remain inviolate forever.' This provision was designed to preserve and guaranty the right of trial by jury in proceedings according to the course of the common law as known and practiced at the time of the adoption of the constitution. ...