W. H. SAVAGE AND OTHERS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
OLIVINE ZELLA SAVAGE, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for the defendant in an ejectment action, holding that plaintiffs could not recover on an equitable title in an action requiring legal title.
No, plaintiffs cannot recover in an ejectment action based on an equitable title, as ejectment requires legal title.
“If the plaintiff has not a legal title at the time of the commencement of his action in ejectment, he cannot recover.”
Establishes the requirement for legal title in an ejectment action.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs claimed they were remaindermen to cattle sold by Robert B. Savage, who used proceeds to buy lots conveyed to the defendant. Plaintiffs asse…
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 Remaindermen cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
An action in ejectment was tried before a Referee, resulting in a judgment for the defendant.
The plaintiffs’ evidence tended to prove that Robert B. Savage sold a stock of cattle belonging to the estate of his deceased wife, Sarah A. Savage, and in part payment he got the lots in litigation, in 1904. Prior to his death in 1914, he conveyed the lots, to the defendant.
The theory of the plaintiffs is that under the will of the said Sarah, only a life estate in the cattle passed to her husband, and' that these plaintiffs as remaindermen could impress the same limited estate upon the realty purchased with the proceeds; in other words their rights, if enforceable, depend upon the equitable remedies of election and conversion.
If the plaintiff has not a legal title at the time of the commencement of his action in ejectment, he cannot recover. He can not support the action upon an equitable title, however clear and indisputable it may be. Paul v. Fries, 18 Fla. 573, text 584.
The evidence shows clearly the legal title in the defendant, and the judgment was clearly correct.
Affirmed.
Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cape Sable Corp. v. Elwood M. McCLURG, 74 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1954)…sent upon which to invoke an estoppel, but in no case do we find a positive ruling of this Court negating the possibility of relief in ejectment for a party relying upon an estoppel. Compare Barco, v. Fennell, 24 Fla. 378, 5 So. 9; Savage v. Savage, 70 Fla. 305, 70 So. 392; 28 C.J.S., Ejectment, §§ 20 and 21. 1 However, we need not consider on this appeal whether or not, on the facts [*885] alleged, an action in ejectment can be maintained on the sole basis of an equitable estoppel. As we view the record,…
Authorities Cited
- Dunbar J. Paul v. Fries, 18 Fla. 573 (Fla. 1882)