J. W. CRAIG

v.

ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY

Citator

Cited By

• Zwakhals v. Senft, 206 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
  …at where, as here, there is a conflict in the calls of a deed, that controls which is more specific and less likely to be in error. Newsom v. Pryor’s Lessee, 1822, 7 Wheat. 7, 5 L.Ed. 382; Hardee v. Horton, 1925, 90 Fla. 452, 108 So. 189, cert. den. 273 U.S. 714, 47 S.Ct. 107, 71 L.Ed. 854; 12 Am.Jur.2d, Boundaries, § 64; 4 Fla.Jur., Boundaries, § 13. The various rules for resolving conflicting and ambiguous calls in a deed are but manifestations of the underlying rule that the prevailing consideration is t…
• Saltzman v. Lacey N. Ahern, 306 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
  …er v. Cole, Sup.Ct.Fla. 1941, 148 Fla. 214, 3 So. 2d 875; Sanders v. Ransom, Sup.Ct.1896, 37 Fla. 457, 20 So. 530; Reid v. Barry, Sup. Ct.Fla. 1927, 93 Fla. 849, 112 So. 846 and Hardee v. Horton, Sup.Ct.Fla.1925, 90 Fla. 452, 108 So. 189, cert. den. 273 U.S. 714, 47 S.Ct. 107, 71 L.Ed. 854) In those cases wherein construction of the language employed in a deed is necessary, the language must be construed strictly against the grantor. (See Horn & Savell v. Gartman, Sup.Ct. Fla.1846, 1 Fla. 63) The recitation…