Winn v. Coggins

• Citation: 42 So. 897,53 Fla. 327
• Parties: WINN et al. v. COGGINS et al.
• Decision Date: 16 January 1907
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Florida

42 So. 897

53 Fla. 327

WINN et al. v. COGGINS et al.

Florida Supreme Court

January 16, 1907

In Banc. Error to Circuit Court, Wakulla County; John W. Malone Judge.

Action by James W. Coggins and others against A. B. Winn and J. D Cay, partners as A. B. Winn & Co. Verdict for plaintiffs. From an order granting a new trial, defendants bring error. Reversed and remanded.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

In an action of ejectment, where the defendants are in possession of the lands in controversy, the plaintiffs cannot recover unless they show title in themselves or prior actual possession of the lands and ouster.

Under chapter 142 of the Laws of Florida, approved January 8, 1848 (Laws 1847-48, p. 13), adverse possession for the term of seven years was necessary to acquire a title by possession.

Chapter 1271 of the Laws of Florida, suspended on December 13, 1861 (Laws 1861, p. 17), the operation of the statute of limitations under which title to lands by adverse possession could be acquired, and such suspension continued until 1872.

If a deed conveying lands purports to have been executed by an officer of court under a decree, and it is sought to use the deed in evidence as title to the lands, the power or authority to make the deed must be shown, unless waived.

Where the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs, and on the issues made the evidence is not legally sufficient to sustain a judgment for the plaintiffs, and a judgment is rendered for the defendants, the trial court is not justified in granting a new trial on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence.

In an action of ejectment, where the evidence shows that the ancestor through whom the plaintiffs claim title as heirs went into possession of the lands in controversy as a squatter and without claim of title in 1842 or 1843, and remained in possession until about 1863 or 1864, and that such ancestor held possession of the lands under color of title from January, 1858, till he left the lands about 1863 or 1864, no title by adverse possession is shown, especially when the statute of limitations under which title by adverse possession for a period of seven years could have been acquired was suspended in 1861, and remained suspended until long after the possession of the lands had been relinquished there being no showing that the lands were thereafter occupied by the ancestor or the plaintiffs, or by any one for them.

COUNSEL Geo. B. Perkins, Geo. P. Raney, and Jos. A Edmondson, for plaintiffs in error.

Nat. R. Walker and W. C. Hodges, for defendants in error.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

The defendants in error brought an action of ejectment on August 17, 1905, in the circuit court for Wakulla county, against the plaintiffs in error, to recover the possession of lots 47 and 48 of Hartsfield's survey, and lots 97 and 98 of Hopkins' survey, containing 1,440 acres, more or less, in Wakulla county, Fla., and for mesne profits. A plea of not guilty was entered. At the trial the jury rendered a verdict for the defendants. The court granted a motion for a new trial, the defendants excepted thereto, and by writ of error bring the order granting a new trial here for review, as authorized by section 1267 of the Revised Statutes of 1892.

The evidence adduced at the trial was in substance as follows: A. J. Boland, for the plaintiffs, testified that James Coggins had a deed to the lands involved in this suit at the time of his death; that none of the heirs has possession of the original deeds made from John Beard, receiver of the Apalachicola Land Company, of the lands mentioned in this suit; that the deeds are not in their possession or control now. 'They told me that they had searched for the deed, and I know they did search, for I myself searched everywhere for the deed, because I was interested in finding the deed. * * * All the plaintiffs to this suit are heirs of James Coggins, who died several years ago intestate.' Testifying further, this witness said: 'James Coggins has been dead for 10 or 15 years; was married only once. His wife is dead. He left the following children: James W. Coggins, S. M. Coggins, and Perry D. Coggins, the boys, and three girls, Mary J. Coggins, Elizabeth Coggins, and Emily Coggins, my wife.'

Mathew D. Raker, for the plaintiffs, testified: 'I knew James Coggins in his lifetime well. It was either in 1842 or 1843 when James Coggins moved on these lands; but he did not get a title until several years afterwards, for nobody could get any titles in those days. People just squatted on the lands, and James Coggins was a squatter and squatted on these lands. He after many years got a deed to these lands according to my understanding. Almost everybody in this country got deeds to the lands they squatted on, when the lands were fixed so they could get deeds. I know I got my deed to the place I squatted on. When he [James Coggins] came to this country, he squatted on these lands, and cut down new ground, and built him a dwelling house, and farmed on the lands. He had about 25 acres in one field around his dwelling house, and another field about a half mile from the house. These fields he kept under fence, and farmed on them the whole time he lived on them until he left, which was sometime during the close of the [Civil] War. I don't recollect; but it was either in 1863 or 1864, to the best of my recollection. He got all his wood off the lands for his own use, and split all his rails on them for uses about the house and farm. Nobody but James Coggins ever made any fences around these lands, or built any houses on these lands. I heard that James Coggins had bargained to sell the lands to James Baggs; but my knowledge is Baggs never lived on the lands. I am certain that nobody ever did live and farm on the lands but James Coggins. James Coggins, I am satisfied, lived on these lands altogether, from the time he first squatted on them to the time he left, 15 or 20 years.'

A. D. Rayborn, for the plaintiffs, testified: 'I knew James Coggins in his lifetime. I knew he never did live anywhere else, except the place he moved from about the close of the War. I did not know the numbers of the land; but he lived across what is known as the 'Coggins Branch,' where his old field now stands, which is all grown up. My father lived near by his place, and I played with his children. When James Coggins moved away, my father moved into the house and stayed there two years, and moved away, when the place went down, and the houses and fences all went to pieces. Nobody to my knowledge ever lived on what was known as 'Coggins' Place' but James Coggins and his family, and my father's family after Coggins left. There was a good dwelling house on the place when my father moved on the place, and a good fence; but after my father left the fence was soon burnt up or went to decay.'

John S. Ferrell, for the plaintiff, testified: 'As to the description of lots 47 and 48, Hartsfield survey, and 97 and 98, Hopkins survey, of my own knowledge I cannot say; but I was always under the impression, and it was generally understood, that James Coggins in his lifetime settled these lands. I knew James Coggins in his lifetime well. Long before the War James Coggins was living at this place, and continued to live on the place and farm until about the middle or close of the War, when he moved away. I am certain that nobody ever improved the lands but James Coggins, and not many years after Coggins left, when the place went to ruin. I do know Baggs never lived on the Coggins lands. Old man Coggins had a very good house and a very good fence on about 25 acres. He had another field a good way off from the house. He lived on these lands to my certain knowledge 10 or 15 years. He was living there long before the War, when I knew him, and continued to live on them till about the middle or last of the War, which was either in 1862, or 1863, or 1864. I cannot remember exactly the time.'

William H. Walker, for the plaintiffs, testified: 'I knew James Coggins, the father to the heirs of this suit, all my life up to his death. I knew that he lived on and occupied lots No. 47 and 48, Hartsfield survey, for 20 years, and 97 and 98, Hopkins survey. Nobody except James Coggins and his family ever did hold possession of these lands. I remember Mr. Rayborn living in the house a short time--a year, maybe, or a little longer--after Mr. Coggins left; but Mr. Rayborn did not claim them. Baggs never lived on the lands, nor did anybody, except James Coggins, ever improve these lands. Coggins had a good substantial fence, to the best of my recollection, and a very good dwelling house and other buildings on these lands. I also know that he used the timber for rails and for other purposes needed on a farm. James Coggins was neighbor to me and my father all the time from the first of my knowledge, and I know that he was in quiet possession of these lots 47 and 48 for 15 or 20 years, and perhaps longer. I assisted in making the survey long years ago, and by the old field notes and surveys I know the lands well, and these are the lands that James Coggins lived on.'

The plaintiffs then offered in evidence a certified copy of the record of a deed without warranty from John Beard, receiver of the Apalachicola Land Company, purporting to convey the lands in controversy to James Coggins, bearing date January 28, 1858, 'pursuant to a decree made at Tallahassee on the eleventh day of April, A. D. 1856, by the Honorable J. W. Baker, judge of the circuit court of the Middle circuit of Florida, in chancery sitting.' The copy of the deed was objected to by the defendants on the ground that the original is the best evidence. Before ruling on this objection the court permitted A. J. Boland, for the plaintiffs,...