Maynard v. Miller
| Decision Date | 08 March 1938 |
| Citation | 182 So. 220,132 Fla. 269 |
| Parties | MAYNARD et al. v. MILLER. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 8, 1938.
Extraordinary Petition for Rehearing Denied July 1, 1938.
Error to Circuit Court, Sarasota County; W. T. Harrison, Judge.
Action by Harriet E. Miller against D. K. Maynard and others. From a judgment for the plaintiff, defendants bring error.
Affirmed.
On Petition for Rehearing.
Randolph Calhoun, of Sarasota, for plaintiffs in error.
John F Burket, of Sarasota, for defendant in error.
This writ of error brings before us for review a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, defendant in error here, against the defendants, who are plaintiffs in error here. The controlling question presented by this record is the sufficiency of the description of the property, as contained in the declaration the deed under which the plaintiff claimed and the judgment. The case was tried before the court without a jury.
It is well settled in this jurisdiction that if the description of the land conveyed in a deed is such that a surveyor, by applying the rules of surveying, can locate the same, such description is sufficient, and the deed will be sustained if it is possible from the whole description to ascertain and identify the land intended to be conveyed. See Walker v. Lee, 51 Fla. 360, 40 So. 881. The trial court was evidently governed by this rule.
Other questions are raised and argued in the briefs, but it is sufficient to say that we find no reversible error in the record and the judgment of the court below will accordingly be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
On Petition for Rehearing.
The points raised by the petition for rehearing were considered by the Court, but there is one point insisted by the petition which we will briefly advert to.
This was an ejectment suit and the declaration substantially followed the form provided by Section 5044, C.G.L. The defendant plead the general issue and also pleas denying possession. The suit was brought against six defendants and charged that they were in the possession of certain described parcel of land to which the plaintiff claimed title, and that the defendant L. L. Taylor had received the profits of said land since May 9, 1935, of the monthly value of $20.00 and that the defendants refused to deliver possession of said land to the plaintiffs, or to pay them the profits thereof. The final judgment was in favor of the plaintiff Harriet E Miller, finding that she held the fee simple title and was entitled to the immediate possession of the property and that she was entitled to $260.00 damages, representing the profits of said land since May 9, 1935, and ordered that she have writ of possession, and further ordered that the plaintiff do have and recover of and from the defendants (not merely one of them) the sum of $260.00 damages and costs of court.
A motion for new trial was filed, one of the grounds of which was that the court erred in entering a judgment against the defendants jointly and severally, on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence of possession. On this motion for new trial the court made an order, in which it was stated that the court was of the opinion that the evidence was insufficient upon the question of possession as to two of the defendants, L. L. Taylor and Ivy Taylor, and granted a new trial as to those two defendants, but denied the motion for new trial as to the other four defendants. The record does not show that any exception was taken to this order. Thereafter the plaintiff moved for the dismissal of the cause as to said Ivy Taylor and L. L. Taylor, which was granted.
It thus appears that the judgment was general against all of the defendants, both on the question of possession and the question of the recovery of the profits, which profits the declaration had alleged were received by defendant L. L. Taylor, but the judgment was general against all, and thereafter the defendants L. L. Taylor and Ivy Taylor were granted a new trial, and then the case was dismissed as to those two defendants.
The contention seems to be that this made the judgment left standing against the other four defendants erroneous and that the writ of possession issued against them was likewise erroneously issued, as well as the judgment for damages for $260.00 for mesne profits. However, this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Holbrook
...reforming it, as this instrument appears to contain a valid street address and parcel identification number. Cf. Maynard v. Miller, 132 Fla. 269, 182 So. 220, 221 (1938) ("It is well settled in this jurisdiction that if the description of the land conveyed in a deed is such that a surveyor,......
-
Gutierrez v. Ortiz, 5694
...adequacy of description see Stevens v. Fincher, 52 N.M. 52, 191 P.2d 350; Padilla v. Northcutt, 57 N.M. 521, 260 P.2d 709; Maynard v. Miller, 132 Fla. 269, 182 So. 220; 26 C.J.S., Deeds, Sec. 30, page 210 et As to point one appellant relies on the case of Pratt v. Parker, 57 N.M. 103, 255 P......
-
A. J. Richey Corp. v. Garvey
... ... F ... Atkinson, judge ... COUNSEL ... Casey, ... Walton & Spain, of Miami, for appellants ... Miller ... & Harris, A. Judson Hill, and Hudson & Cason, all of Miami, ... and George O. Knutson, of Cocoa, for appellees ... OPINION ... ...