Little v. Kendrick

Decision Date09 April 1943
CitationLittle v. Kendrick, 152 Fla. 720, 12 So.2d 899 (Fla. 1943)
PartiesLITTLE et al. v. KENDRICK.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; F. R. Hocker judge.

W. E Smith, of Ocala, for appellants.

Lanas Troxler, of Ocala, for appellee.

ADAMS, Justice.

We have for review a judgment for defendant in ejectment.

Defendant claimed title to 147 acres of land by adverse possession without color of title. He went into possession as a tenant of the rightful owner and so remained until the owner's death in 1926. Thereafter defendant maintained an inclosure about a portion (the amount and description is not identified) of the land. The heirs of the landlord are plaintiffs here.

Defendant farmed portions of the land and cut wood and posts from the unfenced woodland. He maintained a barn with an inclosure about it; he suffered, without protest plaintiffs' removal of the building occupied by the owner after his death. He never offered to pay rent to plaintiffs although none was demanded. Neither did he make known to plaintiffs that he was no longer a tenant or that he was claiming to own the property until about a year before this suit when he began the erection of a dwelling house on the property whereupon the question of title arose.

Two questions are submitted. First, whether it was necessary for defendant to show compliance with Section 95.18, Florida Statutes of 1941, F.S.A. § 95.18, by returning the property for taxation. The lower court held the statute inapplicable to this case because whatever rights defendant had to the property were vested before the act became effective. In this ruling there was no error.

The second question relates to the sufficiency of the evidence regarding adverse possession to sustain a verdict. The law is that a tenant may become an adverse holder against his landlord without surrendering his possession yet in such case it is incumbent on the claimant to show his disavowal of the landlord's title by clear, positive and unequivocal evidence. It is not enough for him to simply remain in possession and exercise all the rights of an apparent owner, for the law presumes that once a man goes into possession as a tenant the relationship continues until the contrary is made to appear. 1 Am.Jur. page 807 et seq. One claiming title by adverse possession without color of title can recover only that part actually occupied. If the portion actually occupied is not difinitely described, no judgment can be entered on the claim. Okeechobee Co. v. Norton et al., 145 Fla. 417, 199 So. 319.

Testing the defendant's claim by this law it is apparent he must fail. His evidence is insufficient to sustain his claim. Furthermore, he admits that a portion of the property was not inclosed, neither was the uninclosed portion usually cultivated or improved. Therefore he failed to meet the requirements of Section 95.17, Florida Statutes, 1941, F.S.A. § 95.17. The part actually inclosed is not sufficiently described to sustain a judgment even if the evidence were sufficient to prove an adverse holding.

The judgment is reversed.

BUFORD, C. J., and TERRELL, J., concur.

CHAPMAN, J., concurs specially.

CHAPMAN, Justice (concurring specially).

On June 17, 1889 the Federal Government patented to Charles H. Little 147 acres of land located in Marion County, Florida. The patentee built a home, cleared a considerable portion of the tract, where he resided for years and raised several children. The children, except one, left the community in which the homestead was situated prior to the patentee's death in 1926, which occurred at the home of his son about one mile from the homestead.

Charles H. Little conveyed one acre of land, adjacent to but of a different tract, to Ed Kendrick, who built a home thereon and moved his family but cultivated annually as a tenant of Charles H Little a portion of the tract here involved. He continued to cultivate the land, or...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
8 cases
  • Miller v. Murray
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • December 11, 1953
    ...were equally as consistent with a tenancy status. Compare Wilkins v. Pensacola City Co., 36 Fla. 36, 18 So. 20; Little v. Kendrick, 152 Fla. 720, 12 So.2d 899; Sarasota-Fruitville Drainage Dist. v. All Lands, etc., 157 Fla. 207, 25 So.2d Any such investment as the plaintiff claims to have b......
  • Nichols v. Ora Tahoma Mining Co.
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • August 30, 1944
    ... ... unable to keep up this contract *** if you do not immediately ... dispose of your property it may be that we can get together a ... little later on *** you have always been most fair to us, we ... just were being a little too optimistic ***" ...          Notwithstanding ... the contrary is made to appear. Ashton v. Golden Gate ... Lumber Co., 6 Cal. Unrep. 307, 58 P. 1; Little v ... Kendrick, 152 Fla. 720, 12 So.2d 899; Holton v ... Jackson, 184 Ky. 559, 212 S.W. 587. The evidence does ... not disclose just when the four claims of ... ...
  • Harris v. Air Conditioning Corp.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • January 7, 1955
    ...from their original contract. Cf. City of Miami Beach v. Miami Beach Improvement Co., 153 Fla. 107, 14 So.2d 172; Little v. Kendrick, 152 Fla. 720, 12 So.2d 899. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, and it is so ROBERTS, C. J., and MATHEWS and BARNS, JJ., concur. ...
  • Yates v. Bass Ranch, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 13, 1980
    ...that once a man goes into possession as a tenant, the relationship continues until the contrary is made to appear." Little v. Kendrick, 152 Fla. 720, 12 So.2d 899, 900 (1943). The tenant's disclaimer and disavowal of the landlord's title must be conveyed to the landlord by clear, positive a......
  • Get Started for Free