ANDREW L. JOHNSON, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
FLORIDA PLANTATIONS COMPANY, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF B. L. HOLMAN, DEFENDANTS 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 plaintiff in an ejectment suit, finding that the defendants' possession of land, though claimed to be different from that described in the declaration, was indeed the land in question. The court found no reversible error in the record.
The court held that the record supported the plaintiff's contention that the defendants were in possession of the land described in the declaration. The court found no reversible error in the record.
“It appears from the record that defendants contended that they were in possession of lands other than that described in the declaration, in one unsurveyed section, while plaintiff contended that the land of which defendants were in possession was the land described in the declaration.”
This quote outlines the central factual dispute between the parties regarding land possession.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn an ejectment suit, the defendants filed pleas denying possession of the land described in the plaintiff's declaration but admitting possession of o…
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 Plea Of Not Guilty cases and more on FLexlaw
In a suit in ejectment defendants filed plea denying possession of the land described in the declaration but averred that they were in possession of other lands described in the plea. Defendants also filed plea of not guilty which plea admits possession. Verdict and judgment were rendered for Plaintiff. Defendant took writ of error.
. It appears from the record that defendants contended that they were in possession of lands other than that described in the declaration, in one unsurveyed section, while plaintiff contended that the land of which defendants were in possession was the land described in the declaration.
The record supports the latter contention.
No reversible error appearing in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.