The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1883-12-04
RKA D.NOTHs TO DECISIONS. o. TH n
SUPREME COURT or Rk1NHDA.



Turner Horne, Appellant, vs.. James u. Richard.
son and Jacob H. Stephens, Administrators OF.
&C, of Frances NJ. Carter, deceased, ApreIlees
jackson county. = E;fe
VANVALKENBuRGH, j.: I'll
l. Under the plea of not guilty 10 gu seton Of
ejectment, the defendant may provss an adverse
possession. Chapter 3244, Laws Oh 1881. does
not change the rule in this respect III provides
only that if the defendant wishes IL fcH posses
sion Of the premises, or wishes to ,ds1y ahai he
claims adversely TO the plaintiff, or 70 his title,
must be do0A BY special plea =
2. plea claiming to be pea 'son equitable
grounds" but which sets up ne fact Upon which
the defendant, if judgment was obtained against
him, would be entitled 10 relief against it, may
be stricken out on motion, or b. sustaining de-
murrer sIG%
B. A plaihtiS in eiectment is bounJ by the al
legations in his declaration ani can recover PCS
session of no greater quantity OF land shan he
claims. He may, under certain circumstances,
recover a lesser estate, Interest, or quantity, but
never a greater.
T. 1t is not error for the court TO refuse to give
an instruction to the jury, requested by DEFEND
ants attorney, as TO the adverse possession
claimed by the defendant, unless there is emr
bodied in such request Il submission 90 the jury
rs 10 the fact whether such adverse possession
had continued for the statutory peblod al seven
years.
s. The appellant is responsible for the cor
rectneSs Of the record sent dp Ia this court
When such record does not furnish the evidence
or facts upon which alleged errors are based,
this court will conclude that the rulings Of tile
court below were in conformity to the law.
D. There is no error in refusing to admit in-
proper and hearsay evidence hut there Is error
in refusing to strike out such evidence when the
same has been improperly admitted
Z. An, adverse possession may, after tie lapse
Of the statutory period, confer posses4&y titE
which is good even as against tue former pwncf
To constitute an adverse possession il is not ned
essary that there should be iichtfa title in the
party setting up the defence The idea dl riglf
is excluded by the very fact of the defence /
8. "A claim Of title is efhcacious as ground
Of title by adverse possession and neither q
deed, nor any equivalent imminent of titA
is necessary tor that purpose, when there i, an
actual occupation, with an oral claim Of exclu;
sive title, or other circumstances by which thu
absolute owner is ordinarily distinguished from
the naked pOssessor."
Judgment reversed and new trial awarded
d. L. McKnnOn, for Appellant; J. +. Moi
Clellan for Appelees.
Josiah r. :, as, Appellant, VS.. NJ and M. Eudel,
espondents-Alachua county.
RANDALL. G. j..
l. A defense " on equitable grounds may Id
interposed in ejectment by plea under the prac,
tce act Of 1861. Such facts may be pleaded al
would entitle the defendant TO an injunction
against enforcing the judgment if he fled bill
alleging the same and prayed an injunction
2 A defence on equitable grounds in ejectmcnl,
the plea alleging that defendant was the owner
of the property, and that plaintiffs title, enough
deed absolute in form, was executed as secu-
rity to the plaintiff for money and other advan-
ces by him to the defendant, 10 good AMI if
proved will entitle the defendant to a verdict.
Such deed is in law and equity 1. mortgage, and
the remedy upon it is by foreclosure and sale for
the amount secured
g. Evidence to show that des,d absolute Is I'M
equity mortgage may be given by parol under
q plea on equitable grounds under the statute
4. A mere extract from a record OF judg-
ment is not evidence to prove judgment The l
whole record or an authenticated or proved copy
is necessary.
s. A judgment in proceedings Tor forcDe en-
try and detaiuer, is not evidence in cjectment,
either in bar of right of recovery of the pre1ni
ses. or of mesne profits.
6. A tax deed describing one house and io in
Gainesville Is bad for uncertainty.
Judgment reversed and new trial grantesi j
Z. c. F. Sanchez, for Appellant; T. F. King,
Finley & Hampton, for Respondents.