ROBERT JAMES REID AND WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
MATTIE R. GRANTHAM AND OTHERS
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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed an order overruling a demurrer, finding the bill of complaint had fundamental defects. The court suggested the bill be reformed to provide clearer facts for a potential future appeal involving the Rule in Shelley's Case.
Yes, the bill of complaint contained fundamental defects, including the failure to join a necessary party (the original grantor) and insufficient factual allegations regarding possession and relationships. Therefore, the demurrer should have been sustained.
“There are fundamental defects in the bill which we cannot overlook.”
Establishes the court's primary reason for reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants sought to cancel a warranty deed. The bill of complaint was demurred to, and the demurrer was overruled. The bill lacked direct allegat…
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 Rule In Shelley'S Case cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
This is an appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to a bill praying the cancellation and surrender of a warranty deed from the Tampa Real Estate and Loan Association to Reid and Wife.
There are fundamental defects in the bill which we cannot overlook. The Tampa Real Estate and Loan Association whose warranty deed the bill seeks to annul is not a party to defendants’ warranty (Gibson v. Tuttle,, 53 Ela. 979, 43 South. Rep. 310) ; the bill fails to allege either possession by the complainants or that the land' involved is wild and unoccupied, lands may be occupied -though not cultivated. Clem v. Meserole, 44 Fla. 19.1, 32 South. Rep. 783.
The case as argued here presents an interesting and rather intricate question involving the application of the rule in Shelley’s Case, and if it is again to be presented we would suggest that the bill be reformed so as to give us by positive allegation the full facts as they existed, and not a bare skeleton, as in the present bill. There is no direct allegation that Laura Rawls was the daughter of Covacevich, nor that she was married at the time the deed was delivered to her, nor that she then had children. It might be well also to consider the advisabil .ityj of bringing in other parties, including all the chilvdren oí Laura Rawls.
For the fatal defects above first pointed out, the de murrer should have been sustained.
Order reversed.
Taylor, Hockeii and Whitfield, J. J., concur. Shackleford, C. J., takes no part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brickell v. Park Trammel, 77 Fla. 544 (Fla. 1919)…ep. 539; Morgan v. Dunwoody, 66 Fla. 522; 63 So. Rep. 905; [*569] Baltzell v. McKinnon, 57 Fla. 355, 49 So. Rep. 546; Hill v. DaCosta, 65 Fla. 371, 61 So. Rep. 750; Peninsular Naval Stores Co., v. Cox, 57 Fla. 506, 49 So. Rep. 191; Reid v. Grantham, 65 Fla. 500, 62 So. Rep. 480. It does not appear that complainant succeeds to the title of Mrs. Hagan, or that the conveyances of the land to complainant were made by parties who were in possession or who could convey title. The mere allegation that complainan…
-
Coral Realty Co. v. Peacock Holding Co., 103 Fla. 916 (Fla. 1931)…ary parties to a bill, cross- [*923] bill or counter-claim, seeking the cancellation of the warranty deeds from Peacock Holding Co., to Cordelia Ship-man and also the warranty deed from Coral Eealty Co., to Peacock Hotel, Inc. See Reid vs. Grantham, 65 Fla. 500, 62 So. 480; Gibson vs. Tuttle, 53 Fla. 979, 43 So. 310. Peacock Holding Co., and Coral Eealty Co., were not parties to the foreclosure suit, and not being before the court, no decree rendered therein purporting to adjudicate the rights of the part…