Osceola Fertilizer Co. v. Beville

• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: TERRELL, J.
• Citation: Osceola Fertilizer Co. v. Beville, 86 Fla. 479, 98 So. 354 (Fla. 1923)
• Decision Date: 22 November 1923
• Parties: OSCEOLA FERTILIZER CO. v. BEVILLE.

98 So. 354

86 Fla. 479

OSCEOLA FERTILIZER CO. v. BEVILLE.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

November 22, 1923

Error to Circuit Court, Broward County; E. C. Davis, Judge.

Action by the Osceola Fertilizer Company against T. Sol Beville. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Adverse possession can be proved under plea of not guilty. It is well settled in this state that in ejectment evidence to prove adverse possession is admissible under the plea of not guilty.

Plea alleging error in description is good. In ejectment, a plea on equitable grounds, alleging error in description both in an agreement and deed of purchase, contrary to the intention of both parties thereto, is good.

Plea containing prayer to reform held improper. In ejectment, a plea on equitable grounds, containing a prayer to reform such agreement and deed of purchase for error in description, is improper only as to the prayer to reform.

Rule as to admissibility of evidence under equitable plea, stated. In providing the defense on equitable grounds, our statute is very liberal, and to give effect to it the courts should properly admit such evidence as would be permissible, to establish the fact set out therein if they were alleged in a bill in equity, and which would entitle defendant to relief against the judgment if obtained at law.

No defenses permissible at common law unless strictly legal; all legal defenses available under plea of not quilty. Under the common-law rule, no defenses were permissible in ejectment except those strictly legal in character. The plea of not guilty makes available all legal defenses.

Sufficiency of evidence not considered without motion for new trial admissibility of evidence reviewable, if excepted to without motion for new trial. A motion for new trial and a ruling thereon, with exception duly taken, are necessary to question the sufficiency of all the evidence to sustain the verdict but any portion of the evidence of a material witness may be reviewed by the appellate court, if such evidence was duly excepted to at the trial or hearing, in the absence of a motion for new trial.

Gives title as completely as if land conveyed; policy of law stated. The law seems to be of universal application that adverse possession of lands maintained for the time provided by statute vests the occupant with title, against that claimed either by strangers or former owners thereto, as completely as if there had been a conveyance by deed. The policy of the law is not to punish those who neglect to assert their rights, but to protect those who have continued in possession of lands for the time specified by statute under or without color of title.

COUNSEL

Baxter & Chancey, of Fort Lauderdale, for plaintiff in error.

Farrington & Lockhart, of Ft. Lauderdale, for defendant in error.

OPINION

TERRELL J.

Eliminating consideration of all nonessentials, the facts in this case are that Osceola Fertilizer Company, a corporation, sued T. Sol Beville, defendant, in an action in ejectment; the declaration being in the statutory form describing the following lands:

'All that part lying west of the county road of the north half (N. 1/2) of the south half (S. 1/2) of the northeast quarter (N. E. 1/4) of the northwest quarter (N.W. 1/4); all in section 11, township 49 south, range 42 east.

The defendant entered three pleas to the declaration as follows: (1) The general issue; (2) adverse possession; and (3) a plea on equitable grounds. A demurrer to the two last pleas was overruled, replications thereto were entered, and a rejoinder as to the last plea was filed by the defendant. A motion to strike the rejoinder was denied, and on trial the jury returned a verdict for the defendant on the basis of which final judgment was entered.

The order of the court overruling plaintiff's demurrer to defendant's special or second and third additional pleas, the order of the court denying plaintiff's motion to strike the rejoinder of defendant to plaintiff's replication, the refusal of the court to strike certain testimony of the witness L. G. Harper, and the giving of certain charges to the jury by the court on his own motion, are assigned as error.

It seems to be well settled in this state that in ejectment evidence to prove adverse possession is admissible under the plea of not guilty. Wade v. Doyle, 17 Fla. 522; Weiskoph v. Dibble, 18 Fla. 24; Neal v. Spooner, 20 Fla. 38; Horne v. Carter, 20 Fla. 45; Coffee v. Groover, 20 Fla. 64. In the light of these decisions, the demurrer of the plaintiff to the second plea of the defendant, like a motion to strike the plea, might properly have been sustained, since defendant had a right to prove or submit proof on his claim of adverse possession under the plea of not guilty. But, as the order of the court below overruling the demurrer to the second plea of the defendant did not in any respect change the status or impair the rights of either party to this litigation, the error, if any, was harmless.

Defendant's third additional plea to the declaration was a plea on equitable grounds, as authorized by section 2635 Revised, General Statutes of Florida, 1920, and was to the effect that plaintiff in 1914, through its agent, pointed out and proposed to sell to defendant certain lands which did not include any of the lands in litigation in this suit, but which lay near and adjacent thereto; that defendant entered into an agreement with plaintiff to purchase said lands, but later, finding he could not make payments for same, by mutual consent it was agreed that defendant might quitclaim to plaintiff the lands which he had agreed with plaintiff to so purchase, that defendant did in fact quitclaim to plaintiff the said lands which he had agreed to purchase from it, and after the quitclaim deed was executed defendant learned that by error in description both the said deed and the agreement described the lands in controversy, but that it was the intention of plaintiff and defendant that said agreement and quitclaim deed describe certain lands adjacent to, and not the lands involved in this litigation.

This plea also contained a prayer to reform the agreement and quitclaim deed, which was improper, but otherwise, under the rule as prescribed in Walls v. Endel, 20 Fla. 86, text 95, and cases therein cited, the plea was proper, and the order of the court overruling the demurrer to it was correct.

In providing the defense on equitable grounds, our statute is very liberal, and to give effect to it the courts should properly admit such evidence as would be permissible to establish the facts set out therein, if they were alleged in a bill in equity, and which would entitle defendant to relief against the judgment if obtained at law.

Under the common-law rule, no defenses were permissible in ejectment except those strictly legal in character. The plea of not guilty makes available all legal defenses. Petty v. Mays, 19 Fla. 652; Walls v. Fndel, 20 Fla 86; Johnson v. Drew, 34 Fla. 130, 15 So. 780, 43 Am. St. Rep. 172. Section 2635, Revised General Statutes of Florida 1920, had the effect of modifying the common-law rule in ejectment, and, in the...