Reyes v. Middleton
Decision Date | 02 July 1895 |
Citation | 36 Fla. 99,17 So. 937 |
Parties | REYES et al. v. MIDDLETON et al. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, St. Johns county; James M. Baker, Judge.
Bill by George C. Middleton and others against Ramon C. Reyes administrator of the estate of Jose E. Reyes, and others. From a judgment overruling a demurrer, defendants appeal. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
1. A deed or other instrument purporting to convey land that shows upon its face that the grantors therein were out of possession of the land granted at the time of its execution and that such land at the time was adversely held by another is void upon its face, as to such adverse occupant, and, as to him, does not create such a cloud upon his title as will authorize the interposition of a court of equity on his behalf for its removal.
2. It is well settled that a court of equity will never lend its aid, by injunction, to restrain the libeling or slandering of title to property, where there is no breach of trust or contract right involved, but that in such cases the remedy if any, is at law, and that the alleged insolvency of the libelant, in such cases, will not, of itself, authorize the interference of the court of equity.
COUNSEL M. C. Jordan and W. A. MacWilliams, for appellants.
C. P. & J. C. Cooper, for appellees.
On the 26th day of July, A. D. 1888, George C. Middleton, Charles E Gard, Burton W. Cole, William H. Erwin, Betsy P. White, William S. Vansickle, Isaac N. Vansickle, Marion R. Cooper, Frank F. Smith, Joseph Randall (as administrator of the estate of Erastus Randall, deceased), R. M. Simms, W. H. Simpson, Ira S. Bunker, Edgar F. R. Fripp, and T. B. George, all of the county of St. Johns, as complainants, filed their bill in equity in the circuit court of St. Johns county against Ramon C. Reyes (in his own right, and as administrator of the estate of Jose B. Reyes, deceased), Carmen Reyes, Innocencia Reyes, Maria del Rosario Reyes, Gabina Andreu, and Emanuel P. Andreu, her husband, and Adolphus N. Pacetti, all of St. Johns county. The bill alleges, in substance: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Organovo Holdings, Inc. v. Dimitrov
...6 S.Ct. 1148, 30 L.Ed. 165 (1886) ; Edison v. Thomas A. Edison, Jr., Chem. Co., 128 F. 957, 963 (C.C.D. Del. 1904) ; Reyes v. Middleton, 36 Fla. 99, 17 So. 937, 939 (1895) ; Raymond v. Russell, 143 Mass. 295, 9 N.E. 544, 544 (1887) ; Flint v. Hutchinson Smoke–Burner Co., 110 Mo. 492, 19 S.W......
-
Farrington v. Greer
... ... the grantee. Coogler v. Rogers, 25 Fla. 853, 7 So ... 391; Nelson v. Brush, 22 Fla. 374; Vincent v ... Hines, 79 Fla. 564, 84 So. 614; Reyes v ... Middleton, 36 Fla. 99, 17 So. 937, 29 L. R. A. 66, 51 ... Am. St. Rep. 17 ... Assuming, ... as did the defendant, that the ... ...
-
Bunch v. High Springs Bank
... ... deed is void and conveys neither the title nor right of entry ... to the purchaser of the land conveyed. Reyes v ... Middleton, 36 Fla. 99, 17 So. 937, 29 L. R. A. 66, 51 ... Am. St. Rep. 17; Coogler v. Rogers, 25 Fla. 853, 7 ... So. 391; Nelson v. Brush, ... ...
-
Hughey v. Winborne
...27 Ark. 414; Society v. Ordway, 38 Cal. 679. See, also, Barnes v. Mayo, 19 Fla. 542; Shalley v. Spillman, 19 Fla. 500; Reyes v. Middleton, 36 Fla. 99, 17 So. 937, 29 L. A. 66, 51 Am. St. Rep. 17. Upon this allegation of irregularity alone it should be held that the bill states a case for re......