Routh v. Williams
| Decision Date | 12 January 1940 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | ROUTH v. WILLIAMS et al. |
Error to Circuit Court, Broward County; George W. Tedder, Judge.
Action in ejectment by Ethel A. Williams and husband against Cornelia A. Routh. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error.
Reversed.
G. H. Martin, of Fort Lauderdale, for plaintiff in error.
W. G Miller and C. E. Farrington, both of Fort Lauderdale, for defendants in error.
Ethel A. Williams, joined by her husband, S. S Williams, brought an action in ejectment against Cornelia A Routh to determine her title to and recover a portion of lot three, block ten of C.J. Hector's Resubdivision of Rio Vista, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 1, page 24, public records of Broward County, Florida. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff and defendant took writ of error.
The record discloses that the plaintiff by mesne conveyances acquired title to lot two, block ten of C.J. Hector's resubdivision of Rio Vista, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 1, page 24, of the public records of Broward County, Florida. It is further shown that the defendant in the same manner acquired title to lots three and four of block ten of the same resubdivision and plat of Rio Vista. The said plat specifies the frontage of lots three and four to be fifty feet each but omits any dimensions as to lot two. The block is more than long enough to give all lots their full frontage.
The question presented is answered by determining whether or not the frontage of lots three and four as purchased by defendant is concluded by the dimensions on the plat of C.J. Hector's resubdivision of Rio-Vista.
It is shown that both parties hereto claim title to their respective lots two, three, and four, 'according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 1, page 24 of the public records of Broward County, Florida'. On the said plat, the dimensions of defendant's lots three and four are given but the lot of the plaintiff (number two) is irregular and no dimensions are indicated. The reason for this is explained but it is not essential to detail. Defendant is asserting title by the plat but plaintiff claims all the plat gives her and is attempting to assert title to a substantial part of lot three adjoining hers and claimed by defendant on the strength of a purchase plat made for her but which has never been recorded.
There is no question here of conflict between the plat, the survey or the field notes. The law is settled that when a plat of lots in block specifies the frontage of each lot, with one exception, any deficiency in the width of the block will show on that lot and its width will be the length of the block, minus the sum of the width of the other lots. Toudouze v. Keller, Tex.Civ.App., 118 S.W. 185; Pereles v. Gross, 126 Wis. 122, 105 N.W.217, 110 Am.St.Rep. 901.
The rule as thus stated is sometimes spoken of as the remnant rule and is corollary to what is known as the apportionment rule which is to the effect that where all the lots are dimensioned, any excess or deficiency will be apportioned among the several parcels according to their frontage, whether the lots are regular or irregular. Pereles v. Magoon, 78 Wis. 27, 46 N.W. 1047, 23 Am.St.Rep. 389. Both rules are rules of construction based on intention.
It is also settled that where a deed refers to another deed or to a map, plat, or survey for a description, the deed, map, plat or survey becomes as much a part of the instrument as if copied therein. Bank of South Jacksonville v. Cammar, 89 Fla. 296, 103 So. 827. The verity of the plat by which the purchase was made was fully attested.
If the deed, map, plat or survey is definite and one by which the land can be located, it will not be overthrown but if it is indefinite, parol evidence may sometimes be introduced to explain or to exemplify the intention of the parties. In this case, the remnant rule applies. It is certain that both parties intended to take title by the plat which dimensions and names the frontage of lots three and four but leaves the dimensions of lot two vacant.
Plaintiff derives her title from the plat...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sayih v. Perlmutter
...to the trial court's attention as soon as it is discovered may be timely, even though not contemporaneous.1 See Routh v. Williams, 141 Fla. 334, 339, 193 So. 71, 73 (1940); Lamb v. State, 90 Fla. 844, 849-50, 107 So. 530, 532 (1925); Brantley v. Tampa Gen. Hosp., 315 So.2d 233, 234 (Fla. 2d......
-
City of Hollywood v. Zinkil, 71--230
...ambiguities in a written instrument, particularly where such ambiguity is 'latent' as distinguished from 'patent'. Routh v. Williams, 1940, 141 Fla. 334, 193 So. 71; Carson v. Palmer, 1939, 139 Fla. 570, 190 So. 720; Connelly v. Smith, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 865; Paradise Beach Homes, Inc. ......
-
Wood v. Starko
...public records of Dade County, Florida. Since this plat is, then, as much a part of the deeds as if copied therein, see Routh v. Williams, 141 Fla. 334, 193 So. 71, and Kahn v. Delaware Securities Corporation, supra, the real question in this case is: What is the boundary line between Lots ......
-
Marshall v. Johnson
...of introducing parol or extrinsic evidence in ascertaining the intended boundary between their parcels of land. See Routh v. Williams, 141 Fla. 334, 193 So. 71 (1940); Drake v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 227 So.2d 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Burgess v. Pine Island Corp., 215 So.2d 755 (Fla. 2d DCA ...