Skip to main content
· 6/15/1909

Norman v. Beekman

Citations

  • 58 Fla. 325

Syllabus

<p>1. Pleas on equitable grounds to an action in ejectment praying that the interest of a feme covert plaintiff be charged in equity with an agreement in writing respecting the lands, ineffective to convey the legal title, are properly stricken.</p> <p>2. A certified copy of a deed of conveyance executed in 1885 by a Florida corporation, under its corporate seal, signed by its president and acknowledged by him before a proper officer is admissible, even though attested by but one witness.</p> <p>3. A tax deed executed in 1904 by the clerk under a private scroll is invalid, and the placing of the official seal to the certificate of recordation endorsed upon the instrument is not an attaching of the official seal to its execution.</p> <p>4. Proof that the lands in controversy are the separate property of the married woman is not a variance in an action of ejectment by “V. B., joined by her husband J. B.,” even though the declaration concludes that the “plaintiffs claim title.”</p> <p>5. Where the defendants in ejectment fail to object to the introduction of deeds that may be incomplete by reason of exceptions not definitely located, fail to connect themselves with any title, paper or possessory, or suggest a better title elsewhere, the affirmative charge for them may be refused.</p> <p>6. In the statutory action in ejectment, the plaintiff may recover the land in controversy together with mesne profits, which latter include damages for waste and dilapidation.</p> <p>7. In ejectment, the damages allowed are those in actions of trespass vi et armis, not trover and conversion.</p> <p>8. In ejectment the injury is to the freehold and the true measure of damages is the injury done to that freehold, whether by withholding the profits thereof from the freeholder or the : waste and dilapidation committed thereon.</p> <p>9. In determining in ejectment the amount of damages for cutting and removing wood the jury are not limited to the value of that actually cut and removed; the

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that language in instrument that contemplates future action is not language which contemplates completed transaction in land
  • holding that language in instrument that contemplates future action is not language which contemplates completed transaction in land
  • holding attempted gift of land invalid where contemplated future action evidenced “an intent to make a gift in the future rather than a completed gift”
  • holding attempted gift of land invalid where contemplated future action evidenced “an intent to make a gift in the future rather than a completed gift”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cockrell, Hill, Hocker, Park, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.