Rambo v. Dickenson

• Decision Date: 20 October 1926
• Parties: RAMBO et al. v. DICKENSON.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

110 So. 352

92 Fla. 758

RAMBO et al. v. DICKENSON.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

October 20, 1926

Rehearing Denied Nov. 24, 1926.

Suit by E. T. C. Dickenson against Mrs. C.J. Rambo and another copartners as the Rambo Lumber Company, for an injunction. From a judgment for complainant, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Subsequent purchasers acquiring title without notice of prior unrecorded deed, mortgage, or transfer, will be protected; claimant under unrecorded instrument has burden of showing subsequent purchaser had actual notice, presumption being that he bought without notice (Rev. Gen. St. 1920, § 3822). Under our recording statutes, subsequent purchasers, acquiring title without notice of a prior unrecorded deed, mortgage, or transfer of real property, or any interest therein, will be protected against such unrecorded instrument, unless the party claiming thereunder can show that such subsequent purchaser acquired the title with actual notice of such unrecorded conveyance or mortgage; and the burden of showing such notice is upon the party claiming under such unrecorded instrument, the presumption in such case being that such subsequent purchaser acquired his title in good faith and without notice of the prior unrecorded conveyance.

Evidence examined, and chancellor's conclusion that such evidence was not sufficient to charge the complainant with knowledge or notice of the rights of the defendant, under an unrecorded deed purporting to convey the swamp timber on certain lands is found to be sustained by the evidence.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Amos Lewis, Judge.

COUNSEL

Carter & Solomon, of Marianna, and Watson & Taylor, of Quincy, for appellants.

James H. Finch, of Marianna, for appellee.

OPINION

BROWN C.J.

The appellee, E. T. C. Dickenson, complainant in the court below filed his bill against the appellants, Mrs. C.J. Rambo and J. R. Sealey, composing the Rambo Lumber Company, and W. B. Hathaway, their agent and manager, to enjoin them from cutting and taking the timber from certain described lands in Jackson county, Fla. The bill alleged that the complainant was the owner in fee simple of said lands, and had purchased the same, together with other lands, for value, from John O. Smith and P. S. Cummings, who had executed to him a warranty deed, dated September 29, 1919, and recorded January 7, 1920, and that complainant had entered into possession under said deed soon after its execution. That complainant is now advised that in September, 1918, said John O. Smith and P. S. Cummings, from whom complainant acquired title, executed and delivered to one J. W. Reynolds, trustee, a timber lease or deed purporting to convey all the swamp timber on said lands in Jackson county, Fla., which deed was filed for record March 2, 1920, nearly two months after the deed to complainant was recorded. That, at the time of the purchase of the lands and receipt of the deed from Smith and Cummings and the recording thereof, complainant did not have any knowledge or notice of the existence of the timber deed, and that complainant is therefore the owner of all the timber on said lands. That complainant is advised that in November 1922, J. W. Reynolds, trustee, had executed to said Mrs. Rambo and Sealey, copartners as Rambo Lumber Company, a deed or lease purporting to convey to them said timber, and that they were preparing to enter upon said lands and cut and remove the timber. That, at the time of said conveyance to defendants of the purported timber rights, complainant was in open, exclusive, and adverse possession of said lands, claiming the same and the timber thereon adversely against the world.

In their answer, the defendants admit that the timber deed to J. W. Reynolds, trustee, had not been recorded at the time the complainant acquired title from Smith and Cummings, but allege that, at that time, complainant had full knowledge and notice of the conveyance of the timber by Smith and Commings to said J. W. Reynolds, trustee.

A considerable amount of testimony was taken on this, the controlling question, in the case. It would serve no good purpose for us to review such testimony here. We have carefully read and considered the same, together with the able arguments and briefs of counsel, and, having done so, we cannot say that the chancellor erred in his conclusion that the defendants had failed to prove such notice or knowledge on the part of complainant prior to the final delivery of the deed by Smith and Cummings to him and his acceptance thereof on January 1, 1920, as to the outstanding timber rights on these particular lands covered by the unrecorded deed. That he had notice of the outstanding timber rights on that part of the lands conveyed, referred to as the 'Christmas place,' lying over the line in Alabama, there can be no dispute; notice of this was given by complainant's deed itself; but, as to the lands here in dispute, with the burden of proof on that issue resting upon defend...