Norton v. Jones
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | WHITFIELD, J. (after stating the facts as above). |
| Citation | Norton v. Jones, 83 Fla. 81, 90 So. 854 (Fla. 1922) |
| Decision Date | 27 January 1922 |
| Parties | NORTON v. JONES et al. |
Bill by Lewis G. Norton, as trustee, against Morning Johnson Jones and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
(Sullabus by the Court.)
One seeking in equity to remove a legal title as a cloud upon his own must show clearly the validity of his own title and the invalidity of his opponent's, for equity will not act in cases of doubtful title, and plaintiff must prevail upon the strength of his own title, and not on the weakness of his adversary's.
Where complainant "as trustee" and certain defendants claiming a legal title through descent from one whose title to land was confirmed by the United States in 1825 had not asserted their rights until 1920, and others who claim adversely under a conveyance executed in 1832 have divided the land into city lots and blocks, and have, by executing conveyances and by giving or permitting liens, dealt with the lands and with the title as owners thereof, and the delay from 1832 to 1920 in asserting their rights by those claiming through descent and their predecessors in interest is unexplained or unexcused, held, that such delay, under the circumstances, while adverse rights were being asserted through such time, is prejudicial to the rights of adverse claimants, and constitutes laches making it inequitable to annul adverse claimant's title.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; H. Pierre Branning, judge.
Carson & Botts, of Miami, for appellant.
Shutts & Bowen, Atkinson & Burdine, Hudson, Wolfe & Cason, Uly O Thompson, Price, Price & Small, and Gramling & Clarkson, all of Miami, for appellees.
The bill of complaint herein filed July 19, 1920, alleges that----
'Lewis G. Norton, as trustee, brings this his second amended bill of complaint against R. A. Amsden' and many other named defendants, 'whereupon your orator, complaining, says:
'That said land had been, before February 22, 1819, inhabited and cultivated by said Polly Lewis.
'(2) That on, to wit, March 21, 1896, a patent was granted by the United States to Polly Lewis, granting to her the following described land, to wit:
'Beginning at the stake and stones (on the bay) for the southeast (S. E.) corner of the donation claim of Mrs. Hagan and which is the northeast (N. E.) corner of this survey. From said corner a gumbo limbo bears north (N.) 28º W. 50 lengths, and a crabwood bears S. 47º W., 60 lengths distant. Thence along the coast of the Atlantic Ocean which is the eastern boundary of this survey, as follows: South 8 1/2º E. 20 chains. Thence south 35 1/2º W. 4 chains. Thence south 57 1/2º>> W. 31 chains. Thence south 66º W. 8.50 chains. Thence south 41º W. 2.20 chains. Thence south 15º W. 12.50 chains, to a stake and stones for the southeast (S. E.) corner of this survey, also northeast (N. E.) corner of the claim of Jonathan Lewis. Thence west along the southern boundary of this survey, which is also the northern boundary of the claim of Jonathan Lewis 88 chains to a stake and stones for southwest (S. W.) corner of this survey, and a corner to fractional section eleven (11) township fifty-four (54) south, range forty-one (41) east. From said corner a pine bears south 41º E. 55 links, a pine bears north 43º> W. 86 links distant, and a pine bears north 60º E., 37 links distant. Thence north along the western boundary of this survey 56.50 chains to a stake for the northwest (N.W.) corner of this survey and a corner to fractional section eleven (11), township fifty-four (54) south, range forty-one (41) east, from said stake a pine bears north 38ºW. 10 links, and a pine bears south 40º E., 80 links distant. Thence east along the northern boundary line of this survey 26 chains, to the stake and stones for the southwest (S. W.) corner to the claim of Mrs. Hagan (from said corner a pine bears north 30º E. 75 links, and a pine bears south 45º W., 30 links distant); 126 chains to the northeast corner of this survey and place of beginning, being section thirty-nine (39) township fifty-four (54) south, range forty-one (41) east, to the Tallahassee meridian, Florida, and containing 637.23 acres. U.S. Surveyor General's Office, Tallahassee, Florida, February 6, 1895. Examined and approved. W. H. Milton, Jr., U.S. Surveyor General. Copy of which said plat is attached to this bill of complaint and made a part hereof. That on the date of the said patent the said Polly Lewis had been for a long time dead, and that therefore the said patnet was a nullity, but that the heirs of the said Polly Lewis, were the owners of said land under and by virtue of the act of Congress and its confirmation aforesaid.
'(3) That on, to wit, May 28, 1832, and prior thereto, and thereafter, the said Polly Lewis was married to Jonathan Lewis.
'(4) That neither prior to her marriage with the said Jonathan Lewis nor after her marital relations with the said Jonathan Lewis had ceased did she execute any conveyance of any kind to the said property, nor did she and her husband, during their marital relations, jointly execute any conveyance to the said property, nor have any of their successors in title conveyed any title except as is hereinafter set out.
'(5) That the said Jonathan Lewis and the said Polly Lewis died intestate, leaving four children, to wit, George Lewis, Frank, sometimes referred to as Frankie, Lewis, Frances Lewis, and Elizabeth Catharine Lewis; that the said George Lewis died intestate; that the said Frank, or Frankie, Lewis never married, and died interest; that the said Frances Lewis married a man named W. A. Johnson, that both the said Frances Lewis Johnson and the said W. A. Johnson, her husband, died intestate; that the issue of their marriage consisted of five children, to wit, W. A. Johnson, Jr., Melinda Johnson, Caroline Johnson, Frances Johnson, and Elizabeth Johnson; that the said Elizabeth Catharine Lewis married a man named Gould; that both the said Elizabeth Lewis Gould and her husband died intestate, leaving four children, to wit, William Gould, George Gould Georgianna Gould, who married a man named Knowles, and James R. L. Gould.
'(6) That the said W. A. Johnson, Jr., was married; that he and his wife died intestate, leaving six children, to wit, Frances Johnson, Lizzie Johnson, Morning Johnson, Sidney Johnson, Winn Johnson, and Mollie Johnson; that the said Frances Johnson Married a man named Granger; that Frances Johnson Granger and her husband both died intestate, leaving three children, to wit: Bertha Granger, Floyd Granger, Anna Granger, all of whom are still living; that the said Lizzie Johnson married a man named Grantham; that both she and her husband died intestate, leaving one child, to wit, May Grantham, who is still living; that the said Morning Johnson is married and is living with her husband, John L. Jones; that the said Sidney Johnson and the said Vinn Johnson are living; that the said Mollie Johnson married Abe Waddell; that she died intestate, leaving her husband, Abe Waddell, still living, and three minor children, to wit, Mollie J. Waddell, Folley Waddell, and Edgar Waddell, all of whom are still living.
'(6) That the said Melinda Johnson married Benjamin A. Baker; that she died intestate, leaving her husband still living and eight children, to wit: Stella Baker, who married Charles E. Roberts; William M. Baker; Benjamin A. Baker, Jr.; Oliver F. Baker; Lemuel Baker; Jessie V. Baker, who married Charles E. Duval; Carl Baker; and Pansy I. Baker, who married Hershel Connor--all of whom and their respective husbands are still living.
'(8) That the said Caroline...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart 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
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
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
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
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
Start Your Free Trial
-
Commodores Point Terminal Co. v. Hudnall
...Elizabeth Hendricks, 'in order that innocent purchasers may not be deceived,' as was the heir at law in Moseley v. Taylor. In Norton v. Jones (Fla.) 90 So. 854, the main were that in 1825 one Polly Lewis acquired title from the United States to 640 acres of land situated on Bay Biscayne, ne......
-
De Huy v. Osborne
...involved and other relative circumstances occurring during the lapse of time. Geter v. Simmons, 57 Fla. 423, 49 So. 131; Norton v. Jones, 83 Fla. 81, 90 So. 854. See, Freed v. Miami Beach Pier Corp. (Fla.) 112 So. 841, 52 A. L. R. 1177. In specific performance, no general rule applicable to......
-
Baldwin v. Mills
...long ago legitimated the 1861 commitment of the congregation and its property to the doctrine and authority of PCUS. Norton v. Jones, 83 Fla. 81, 90 So. 854 (1922); Greek Catholic Church of St. Michaels v. Archbishop Platon Roizdestvensky, 67 Colo. 217, 184 P. 295, 18 A.L.R. 690 (1919). Cf.......
-
Torreyson v. Dutton
...here unless apparent upon the face of the petition for intervention. See Anderson v. Northrop, 30 Fla. 612, 12 So. 318; Norton v. Jones, 83 Fla. 81, 90 So. 854. It is apparent from the face of the bill for intervention that Lacey is guilty of laches in asserting the claim for forfeiture of ......
-
Real property actions
...the 2018 Second Regular Session of the 25th Legislature). See Also Stark v. Frayer , 67 So.2d 237, 239 (Fla. 1953); Norton v. Jones , 83 Fla. 81, 101 (Fla. 1922).. §13:80.2 Elements of Cause of Action — Florida Supreme Court [No citation for this edition.] §13:80.2.1 Elements of Cause of Ac......
-
Legal theories & defenses
...or reason for the long delay, laches will be imputed to them, and the courts will refuse their aid by reason thereof. Norton v. Jones , 90 So. 854, 860 (Fla. 1922). 2. Infants: Laches in not imputable to an infant. Watkins v. Watkins , 166 So. 577, 589 (Fla. 1936). 3. Statutory Laches: The ......