SUPERVISORS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, L. L. MORGAN AND GEORGE V. RUSSELL, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
ARCADIA CITRUS GROWERS ASSOCIATION, A CORPORATION, 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 replevin action, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a directed verdict for a receiver, holding that the trial court improperly restricted the plaintiff's evidence by limiting him to proof of rights derived from a written contract rather than allowing him to establish independent possession rights in the citrus crop.
The trial court erred in restricting the plaintiff's evidence. A party asserting rights independent of a written instrument is not bound by the parol evidence rule, which applies only to rights that originate in or are founded upon a written contract. The plaintiff was entitled to present evidence of his right of possession independent of any written instrument.
“At the trial plaintiff was entitled to show his right of possession independent of the instrument of writing introduced in evidence.”
Establishes the core holding that plaintiff could prove possession rights without being limited to the written contract.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff sued a court-appointed receiver to recover possession of a citrus fruit crop. The receiver had taken possession of the crop during a foreclo…
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 Right Of Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
This was a replevin case. Plaintiff sued defendant, a court receiver, to recover possession of a crop of citrus fruit. The court granted permission to sue the receiver after the receiver in a foreclosure case had taken possession of the crop. At the trial, a directed verdict was given in favor of the defendant. The result was a judgment for the receiver against plaintiff who asserts that he had acquired lawful possession of the crop from the grower who had produced the fruit. The foreclosure was against the owner of the land upon which the crop involved in the suit had been grown.
*806At the trial plaintiff was entitled to show his right of possession independent of the instrument of writing introduced in evidence. As to rights which originate in the relation established by a written contract, or one founded upon it the rule against varying it by parol applies. But the rule against varying a written contract by parol does not apply to rights which are asserted independent of the written instrument. Minneapolis St. etc. Ry. Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 55 Minn. 236, 56 N. W. 815; Roof v. Chattanooga Wood Split Pulley Co., 36 Fla. 284, 18 So. 597.
The court below appears to have ruled on the admissibility of evidence and to have directed a verdict for the defendant on the theory that plaintiff in the replevin case was limited to recovery upon the written instrument in evidence, or not at all. The issues were thus too narrowly restricted and a new trial should be granted.
The motion to dismiss the writ of error should be denied. The certificate to the transcript shows a complete record sufficient for the purposes of this appeal, altho the original writ of replevin, requested by defendant in error to be included therein, has been omitted because the clerk certifies it was lost. Had it been material, defendant in error should have requested that it be re-established since its inclusion in the transcript would only have been made at defendant in error’s request for its particular benefit. Process is ordinarily omitted from transcripts brought to this court. The omission of the writ of replevin, while irregular, is not fatal, nor is it shown to have been due to the fault of the plaintiff in error. The case can be disposed of on other grounds not involving the omitted writ.
Reversed for new trial.
*807Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Buford, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marianna Lime Prods. Co. v. McKay, 109 Fla. 275 (Fla. 1933)…regarded as completely covering the subject dealt with, and is silent on the subject of any such warranties. Bryan v. St. Andrews Bay Community Hotel Corp., 99 Fla. 132, 125 Sou. Rep. 142; Compare; Supervisors, Inc., v. Arcadia Citrus Growers Ass’n, 101 Fla. 804, 135 Sou. Rep. 296. So the first two amended [*283] pleas properly went out on demurrer under application of the foregoing rule. The third, or last amended plea, while attempting to set up a recoupment of damages based on a term of the written cont…
-
Storrs v. Storrs, 130 Fla. 711 (Fla. 1937)…regarded as completely covering the subject dealt with, and is silent on the subject of any such warranties. Bryan v. St. Andrews Bay Community Hotel Corp., 99 Fla. 132, 125 Sou. Rep. 142; Compare: Supervisors, Inc., v. Arcadia Citrus Growers Ass’n, 101 Fla. 804, 135 Sou. Rep. 296.” So, for the reasons stated, we must recede from our judgment heretofore entered in this cause on May 20, 1937, which we now do, and now affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court. It is so ordered. Ellis, C. J., and Brown, and…
-
Arcadia Citrus Growers Ass'n v. Supervisors, Inc., 106 Fla. 518 (Fla. 1932)…Per Curiam. This is the second appearance of this suit in this Court. See Supervisors, Inc. et al., vs. Arcadia Citrus Growers Association, 101 Fla. 804, 135 Sou. 296. The Record is somewhat confusing. The suit was brought by the plaintiff against Arcadia Citrus Growers Association, the defendant, which defendant was at the time in possession of the property involved by reason of having been appoint…
Authorities Cited
- Roof v. Chattanooga Wood Split Pulley Co., 36 Fla. 284 (Fla. 1895)