Jackson v. Haisley

Citations

• 35 Fla. 587

Syllabus

<p>1. By the attestation clause of a deed it appeared that the same was-“signed, sealed and delivered” in the,presence of two witnesses. One of the subscribing witnesses, making affidavit for. the purpose of having the deed admitted to record, only swore-that he saw the grantor “sign” the same, and “ acknowledged-' that he did so for the purpose therein mentioned,” and that affiant and the other subscribing witness “ signed the same as witnesses.” Construing this affidavit,- together with the attestation, it sufficiently proves the execution of the deed to admit it to record.</p> <p>2. It is not the policy of the law not to nullify records wherever substance is found, and obvious clerical errors and technical omissions should be disregarded. A substantial compliance with, the statute is sufficient.</p> <p>3. It is error in an action of ejectment to exclude from the jury evi. dence which tends to show a prior possession upon the part of the plaintiff.</p> <p>4. Where a party in peaceable possession of land is ousted by a b:-re-trespasser who enters without any right or claim of title, the ousted party may recover upon [proof of prior possession, and' it is not necessary for such recovery that such possession, should have been held for the time and in the manner required, by the statute for a prescriptive title.’’</p> <p>5. In an action of ejectment where the defendant offers no proof of title beyond a mere naked possession, it is not “necessary for- - the plaintiff to show by competent evidence an unbroken chain-of title, from the government down to the plaintiff, in order to recover the premises,” and such an instruction to the jury was erroneous.</p>