Hutto v. Hutto
Citation | 63 So. 914,66 Fla. 504 |
Parties | HUTTO et al. v. HUTTO et al. |
Decision Date | 16 December 1913 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Hernando County; W. S. Bullock, Judge.
Suit by Vice L. Hutto and others against Mary Hutto and others. From decree for complainants, defendants appeal. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
Equity will not declare a deed void on behalf of the grantor, who retains the full consideration, upon the sole ground that the grantee named therein, and who paid the consideration, died before the execution of the deed, but upon proper whowing may reform the deed.
COUNSEL Geo. C. Martin, of Brooksville, for appellants.
Wm. H Jackson, of Tampa, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a decree canceling, as a cloud upon title, a deed executed by William H. Hutto and Vice L. Hutto, his wife, to his father, William Hutto, by reason solely of the fact that the father was dead when the deed was executed. The deed, made a part of the bill of complaint, recites a consideration of $3,000, which consideration is in no wise negatived or explained by the allegations of the bill.
It appears that William H. Hutto resided on the land, holding title thereto until 1890, when he moved to De Soto county and there established his home. The father died in December 1890, and another brother who became administrator of his estate, took possession of the property until the freeze of 1894 destroyed the orange grove upon the property, and since then the property has been unoccupied. William H. Hutto and his wife, Vice, executed the deed to the property in 1896 naming the dead father as grantee, and this deed was recorded in 1904. William H. Hutto died in 1899, and this bill was filed in 1912 by his widow, the said Vice, and her children against the other heirs of the father, William Hutto, who both answered the bill and filed a cross-bill.
Much of the briefs is devoted to the action of the court in sustaining objections to the competency of testimony by the defendant parties, touching transactions and communications with the deceased father and brother.
It is probable that the complainant, in the testimony of Vice Hutto as to transactions and communications, both as to her deceased husband and father-in-law, let down the bars to this forbidden field of evidence, but we do not find it necessary to decide these questions. It is certain that neither by allegation nor proof do the...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Ferguson v. Mcdonald
-
Black v. Beagle
... ... Handy v. Handy (Ga.) 115 S.E ... 114; Bank v. Kingery (Ga.) 154 S.E. 355; ... Thompson v. Co. (N. C.) 84 S.E. 289; Hutto v ... Hutto (Fla.) 63 So. 914; Society v. Murray ... (Mo.) 47 S.W. 501; Hopkins v. Slusher (Ky.) 98 ... S.W.2d 932. Appellant had notice of ... ...
-
Matthews v. Greer
... ... under the statute in accordance with the statute. The result ... is an equity enforceable at any time. Hutto v. Hutto, 66 Fla ... 504, 63 So. 914. If the patent is void as a conveyance for ... the reason urged, yet is the equitable title to the land in ... ...
-
Matthews v. Austin
... ... under the statute in ... [297 S.W. 368] ... accordance with the statute. The result is an equity ... enforceable at any time. [Hutto v. Hutto, 66 Fla ... 504, 63 So. 914.] If the patent is void as a conveyance for ... the reason urged, yet is the equitable title to the land in ... ...