Hogans v. Carruth

Citations

• 19 Fla. 84

Syllabus

<p>1. A plaintiff in ejectment cannot recover as against one having possession without title by proving title in a third person.</p> <p>2. Right to possession is an incident to legal title, and is good against a naked possession unaccompanied by claim of title.</p> <p>8. A defendant in possession will defeat a recovery by plaintiff by showing title in another person.</p> <p>4. Where the courses and distances in a deed do not cover the quantity of land called for, and are therefore uncertain as boundaries, and there are other boundaries given in the deed by adjoining tracts, which are ascertained and sufficiently established, the lines will be extended to them where such a course is consistent with the manifest intention of the parties.</p> <p>5. If, as to an ancient deed coming from the possession of the heirs of the grantee, it appears that the names of one or more of the grantors, who could not write, is in the hand-writing of a person then present, and not a party to the deed or in interest, in the absence of evidence of fraud, the presumption is that the signatures were made in the presence of the parties by virtue of an oral direction from them, in which event the signatures are those of the parties as principals.</p> <p>6. Proof of the hand-writing of witnesses to an ancient deed, they being dead, the deed coming from the heirs of the grantee, and having been spread upon the county records in regular order and in due form, is sufficient proof of execution and delivery.</p> <p>7. Under our statute the attestation of a deed in the words “bargained, sold, transferred and acknowledged in presence of us,” where the testificandum clause .is “in witness whereof the said parties of the first part have hereunto set their hands and seals, the day and year first above written,” other facts showing delivery being-established, is sufficient.</p>