46 Fla. 213 | Fla. | 1903
W. L. Jernigan brought an action of ejectment in the Circuit Court of Santa Rosa county against John Hoodless for the recovery of a tract of land lying in said county described as the South half of Lot 2, in Section 2, Township 1 North, Range 28 West, containing about forty acres, and for mesne profits. The defendant pleaded not guilty -and trial was had, which resulted in the following verdict being rendered by the jury in favor of the plaintiff October 7, 1901. “We the jury find that the plaintiff is entitled to the lands in dispute, to-wit: S. x/¿ of Lot 2, Tp. 1 N., R. 28 West, containing 40 acres, more or less, and assess plaintiff’s damages at $25.00.”
Upon said verdict the following judgment was entered by the court October 11, 1901: “Therefore, it is considered by the court that the plaintiff do have possession of said land as described and that he do have and recover of and from the said defendant the said sum of twenty-five dollars as his damages and the further sum of $33.13 as his costs in his behalf expended in and about this suit and that he do have execution and writ of possession therefor.”
The defendant below, who is plaintiff in error here, seeks reversal by writ of error and has assigned six errors.
The first assignment is that “the court erred in admitting the certified copies of the minutes of the court reestablishing the execution under which the land in question was sold to Woods under which sale plaintiff deraigned.”
The ordinary bill of exceptions discloses that the plain
As said by this court in Carter v. Bennett, 4 Fla. 283, text 338, quoting with approval the Supreme Court of New York as being in perfect agreement with the Supreme Court of the United States, “a party who objects to evidence or the competency of witnesses should state specifically the grounds of his objections. It is not sufficient to object generally that the evidence is illegal, or the witness is incompetent; but the party objecting must put his finger upon the very point, to apprise the court and his adversary of the precise objection he intends to make.”' Also see Gladden v. State, 12 Fla. 562; Withers v. Sandlin, 36 Fla. 619, text 622, 18 South. Rep. 856; Edwards v. State, 39 Fla. 753, 23 South. Rep. 537; Kirby v. State, 44 Fla. 81, 32 South. Rep. 836. No objection can be urged in the appellate court to
We can not consider any objections to the admissibility of evidence, except such objections as were made in the court below, the plaintiff in error being confined here to the specific objections made in the trial court. Jacksonville T. & K. W. Ry. Co. v. Peninsular Land, Transp. & Manuf’g Co., 27 Fla. 1, 9 South. Rep. 661; Summer v. Mitchell, 29 Fla. 179, 10 South. Rep. 562; Sullivan v. Richardson, 33 Fla. 1, text 112, 14 South. Rep. 692; Camp v. Hall, 39 Fla. 535, text 570, 22 South. Rep. 792; Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Foxworth, 41 Fla. 1, 25 South. Rep. 338; Wallace v. State, 41 Fla. 547, text 572, 26 South. Rep. 713; Brown v. State, 44 Fla. 28, 32 South. Rep. 107; Lavarence v. State, 45 Fla. 42, 34 South. Rep. 87; Ferrell v. State, 45 Fla. 26, 34 South. Rep. 220; Brown v. State, 46 Fla. 159, 35 South. Rep. 82; 8 Ency. Pl. & Pr. 223; Abbott’s Trial Brief, Civil Jury Trials (2nd ed.), 242; 1 Thompson on Trials, secs. 693, 698, 843. In actions at law the party objecting to the introduction of evidence must not only state specifically the grounds of his objections thereto, as set forth above, seasonably except thereto, and base his assignment of error upon the objections as made in the court below and upon the ruling thereon, but must argue the assignment as made in this court. Dell v. Marvin, 41 Fla. 221, 26 South. Rep. 188. Other authorities will be cited upon this point later on in this opinion. The only exception to the rule that errors not assigned or not argued will not be considered by this court is where a jurisdictional or other fundamental error
Considering this assignment in the light of these authorities, what have we before us? At a glance, it is seen that there is a variance between the objections made in the court below and the error as assigned. The assignment admits that the certified copy of the minutes contains a copy of the executions as re-established under which the sale was made. The sole question presented then and argued here is, did the court below err in admitting the certified copy of said minutes re-establishing said executions? No assault was made in the court below or is attempted to be made here upon the correctness of said judgments and executions, upon the orders re-establishing same or the authentication of same. It must also be remembered that said minutes were offered as an entirety and the only error complained of here is as to their admission in evidence because they contained copies of the executions as re-established. It is, therefore, tacitly conceded by plaintiff in error that said minutes were properly admitted so far as the judgments and orders of re-establishment are concerned. It is further conceded that the lands were sold under the executions as reestablished. This court has decided that where part of a witness’ answer to a question is admissible and part inadmissible, a motion to strike such answer is properly refused unless it is confined specifically to the inadmissible part of such answer. Higginbotham v. State, 42 Fla. 573, 29 South. Rep. 410; Johns v. State, 46 Fla. 153, 35 South. Rep. 71; Fields v. State, 46 Fla. 84, 35 South. Rep. 185. This being true, we are of the opinion that where a document is offered in its entirety, as was- the certified copy of the minutes in this case, and in its entirety is objected to upon the ground that a portion of it is inadmissible, and that, in a general way, no error was committed by the court in overruling the objection. Engelke & Feiner M. Co. v. Grunthal, 46 Fla. supra, 35 South. Rep. 17; New York, T. & M. Ry. Co. v.
In the consideration of this assignment it should be borne in mind, as was said by this court in Allen v. Lewis, 38 Fla. 115, 20 South. Rep. 821, that “the evidentiary and ordinary bills of exceptions must be made up separate and distinct from each other, and each must be sufficient and complete in itself to review the errors designed to be presented, and a reference from one to the other is not permissible.” In Jacksonville St. R. Co. v. Walton, 42 Fla. 54, 28 South. Rep. 59, it was said that “the duty devolves upon the plaintiff in error or his counsel upon resort to an appellate court .to make the errors complained of clearly to appear, if they in truth exist, by a proper record of all the facts and circumstances pertinent to, and connected with, such alleged error, but in exhibiting them the duty likewise devolves upon him to exhibit all such facts and circumstances fairly and truly.” Also in the sixth headnote it was said that “the rules contemplate that in making up bills of exception based upon the admission or rejection of evidence, where the evidence admitted or rejected forming the subject of the exception does not in and of itself show upon its face its pertinency and relevancy to the issue being tried, and there is other evidence either admitted, or proffered and rejected, that will connect it with the case and show its relevance and pertinence, such other evidence should be set forth in the bill'of. exceptions so as to enable the appellate court fully and fairly to pass upon the propriety or impropriety of the admission or rejection thereof.” Also see Special Rule 3, and Volusia County Bank v. Bigelow, 45 Fla. 638, 33 South. Rep. 704. As we have seen,
Whether the plaintiff, in addition to the certified copy of the minutes, should have gone further and introduced the executions themselves under which the sale was made, together with the sheriff’s return thereon, or else have satisfactorily accounted for the absence of said executions, as by proof of their loss or destruction, we do not decide, because that question is not before us for consideration upon this assignment. As previously said, so far as we are advised, such additional proof may have been adduced.
The second assignment is that “the court erred in sustaining plaintiff’s objection to the introduction of the deéd
Turning to the ordinary bill of exceptions, we find that the objections offered by plaintiff to the introduction of said deed were “that the description of the land intended to be conveyed by the said deed is vague, indefinite and uncertain and is no description, because the property can not be located under the calls of the deed; because the description in said deed is to land in another lot than that in controversy.”
While it is true, as held -by this court in Campbell v. Carruth, 32 Fla. 264, 13 South. Rep. 432, that “if the description of the land conveyed in a deed is such that a surveyor, by applying the rules of surveying, can locate the same, such description is sufficient and the deed will be sustained, if it is possible, from the whole description, to ascertain, and identify the land intended to be conveyed,” it is also true that the description of the premises conveyed must be sufficiently definite and certain to enable the land to be identified; otherwise it will be void for uncertainty. See Commyns v. Latimer, 2 Fla. 71; Bellamy v. Bellamy, 6 Fla. 62; 2 Devlin on Deeds (2nd. ed.), sec. 1010, and numerous authorities cited in note. Also see Buesing v. Forbes, 33 Fla. 495, 15 South. Rep. 209. A careful examination of the deed in question discloses that the description therein is so vague and indefinite that a surveyor would not be able to locate the land therein attempted to be conveyed. We are further of the opinion that the attempted description is a nullity, and, therefore, no land was conveyed thereby. No error was committed by the court in excluding it.
The third assignment is based upon the exclusion of a deed from John Woods and Sarah Woods to Sarah Greene, offered in evidence by defendant. The same objections were interposed by plaintiff as to the introduction of the preceding deed, and, in addition thereto, that said deed was not prop
The fourth assignment is that “the court erred in ruling that the possession of defendant as tenant at will or sufferance was not sufficient to establsh adverse possession in defendant’s landlord as against the title of plaintiff.” We are not informed as to the circumstances under which this ruling was made, whether upon some point of evidence or in giving or refusing to give instructions to the jury. All that is disclosed by the ordinary bill of exceptions is that such a ruling was made by the court and excepted to by defendant. See Allen v. Lewis, supra, and Jacksonville St. R. Co. v. Walton, supra. None of the instructions given by the court to the jury are'set forth either in the record proper or in the ordinary bill of exceptions. If the error complained of is based upon an instruction given to the jury, then the plaintiff in error should have recited in the ordinary bill of exceptions a statement of the evidence, or what the evidence tended to prove, in connection with the charge predicated on such evidence. See Jacksonville St, R. Co. v. Walton, supra, and Special Rule 3. The appellate court, equally with suitors is bound by its rules, and they must be construed as statutes would be construed. Merchants’ Nat.Bank of Jacksonville v. Grunthal, 39 Fla. 388, 22 South. Rep. 685.
In this court it has been held repeatedly that “the office of a bill of exceptions is to give the facts on which the court decided; and should give all the facts bearing upon the decision, so tha.t the appellate court may know fully and clearly everything which influenced the decision of the court.” Horn v. Gartmen, 1 Fla. 63 ; Proctor v. Hart, 5 Fla. 465; Bailey v. Clark, 6 Fla. 516; Waterson v. Seat, 10 Fla. 326; Dibble v. Truluck, 11 Fla. 135; Boykin v. State,
The fifth assignment is that “the court refused to give affirmative charge requested by the defendant to return a verdict in favor of defendant.”
No statement is given in the ordinary bill of exceptions of the facts established by the evidence upon which the said requested charge was predicated. See Jacksonville St. R. Co. v. Walton, supra, and Special Rule 3. The only argument made by plaintiff in error in support of this assignment is to repeat it in substance and say that the charge should have been given. This is equivalent to an abandonment of said assignment, and hence it must be deemed and treated as abandoned, and need not be considered by us. This court has so often decided that errors not argued will be treated as abandoned and not considered that we are finding it a little monotonous to repeat the ruling. See the following cases: Southern Express Co. v. Van Meter, 17 Fla. 783; Bird v. State, 18 Fla. 493; Meinhardt Bros. & Co. v. Mode, 22 Fla. 279; Jordan v. Sayre, 24 Fla. 1, 3
The sixth and last error assigned is that the court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. Turning to the ordinary bill of exceptions, wherein said motion is set forth, we find that in disposing of the other errors
However, the verdict shows upon its face that it is contrary to law, in that it fails to find and state the quantity of the estate of the plaintiff, which is required by section 1515 of the Revised Statutes of 1892, which reads as follows: “1515. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff — Verdict.—A verdict for the plaintiff shall state the quantity of the estate of the plaintiff and describe the land by its metes and bounds, by the number of the lot or other certain description. 2. Judgment. — The judgment awarding possession shall in like manner state the quantity of the estate, and give a description of the land recovered.”
That the verdict was defective in failing to find and state the quantity of the estate, see Lungren v. Brownlie, 22 Fla. 491; Elizabethport Cordage Co. v. Whitlock, 37 Fla. 190, 20 South. Rep. 255; Russell v. Marks, 32 Fla. 456, 14 South. Rep. 40; Bartley v. Bingham, 34 Fla. 19, 15 South. Rep. 592; Asia v. Hiser, 22 Fla. 378. See, also, Low v. Settle, 22 West Va. 382.
We also call attention to the fact that the verdict failed -to describe the land. It is true there is an attempted description of the land in the verdict, but the number of the section in which the land was situated is entirely omitted therefrom. Undoubtedly this was a clerical error, and one not likely to occurr again in drafting a verdict for the plaintiff if he should succeed upon another trial. For this reason it does not seem necessary now to determine whether this defect alone in the verdict would constitute reversible
As we have already seen, said statute also requires that the judgment shall in like manner state the quantity of the estate, and give a description of the land, recovered. The judgment entered in this case is defective in both of these requirements. In addition to the authorities cited supra, see Neal v. Spooner, 20 Fla. 38.
It is elementary that the judgment in the action of ejectment should follow the verdict as a matter of course. See Neal v. Spencer, supra, and 7 Ency. Pl. & Pr. 349.
For the reason stated the verdict can not be sustained, and it was error to enter a judgment thereon.
The court should have granted the motion for a new trial, and the refusal so to do constitutes reversible error. It is neither advisable nor proper for us to express any opinion upon the evidence. It follows that, for the error found, the judgment must be reversed and a new trial awarded, and it is so ordered, at the cost of the defendant in error.