MICHIGAN TRUST COMPANY, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
GEORGE CANADA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this ejectment action, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment for the defendant who claimed adverse possession without color of title. The court held that the defendant's possession—limited to living on the land, building a house, and maintaining a fence—did not satisfy the statutory requirement of actual and continuous occupation protected by a substantial enclosure or cultivation/improvement.
The court held that the defendant's possession did not satisfy Florida law requiring that adverse possession without color of title must involve actual and continuous occupation protected by a substantial enclosure or by cultivation or improvement. The testimony regarding the defendant's house, land clearing, and fencing did not comply with the statutory requirements to mature a title by adverse possession.
“Title by adverse possession without color of title may be acquired only where the land has for the requisite period of time, under a claim of title exclusive of any other right, been actually and continuously occupied by being protected by a substantial enclosure, or by being cultivated or improved.”
States the statutory standard for adverse possession without color of title that must be satisfied.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichigan Trust Company brought an ejectment action against George Canada to recover land. Canada admitted the plaintiffs had proved good record title …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Substantial Enclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
In an action of ejectment brought by the plaintiffs in error against George Canada there was judgment for the defendant. On writ of error it is contended, among other things, that the verdict is contrary to the evidence.
The defendant “admitted in open court that the plaintiffs had proved a good record title.” Thereupon the defendant testified as follows: “I am the defendant in this case. I am in possession of the tract of land which I suppose is that described by witness Miller. I have lived on that place for 17 years; have built a house, cleared the land and fenced the premises. All the land that is at present occupied by me, has been occupied by me for more than 10 years; I last built a fence about four years ago, and that was to replace a burnt fence and that was on the line of the old fence. I have enclosed no land, not previously enclosed, for about ten years. I have resided there with my wife and children all the time. I am a cattle man.”
This is the only evidence as to the character of the defendant’s actual possession and occupancy of the land, and there is no claim that the possession was under color of title. There is a claim that the possession was adverse.
Title by adverse possession without color of title may be acquired only tvhere the land has for the requisite period of time, under a claim of title exclusive of any other right, been actually and continuously occupied by being protected by a substantial enclosure, or by being cultivated or improved. Sec. 1722 Gen. Stats, of 1906.
The evidence as to possession does not indicate that the fence mentioned was a substantial enclosure or that the land has been cultivated or improved. Testimony that the defendant “built a house, cleared the land and fenced the premises,” does not comply with the requirements of the statute to mature a title by adverse possession without color of title.
The judgment is reversed.
Shackelford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockerel and Hocrcer, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Osceola Fertilizer Co. v. Beville, 86 Fla. 479 (Fla. 1923)…45; Baugher v. Boley, 63 Fla. 75, 58 South. Rep. 980; Skinner Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 56 Fla. 561, 47 South. Rep. 931; Kendrick v. Latham, 25 Fla. 819, 6 South. Rep. 871; Seymour & Simpson v. Creswell, 18 Fla. 29, text 35; Michigan Trust Co. v. Canada, 65 Fla. 54, 61 South. Rep. 123; Normant v. Eureka Co., 98 Ala. 181, 12 South. Rep. 454; Peabody v. [*484] Hewett, 52 Me. 33, 83 Am. Dec. 486; Scottish American Mortg. Co. v. Butler, 99 Miss. 56, 54 South. Rep. 666; Myers v. McGavock, 39 Neb. 843, 58 N. W. Rep.…