The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1886-03-25

nnAa.asz1. - - - 2. -
yanuasy xses, 3. =. 1855.
WIN. q. Ashmsad, Ciarsnos h. Ashmssd and
Martin 0rifin, AppellantA W Emily n VIII
sou. ExeCutfix az Coavsfse fAfkhurst, Do
ceesed and James z. WILSON, Her Husband,
Appsllea litom Putnam county.
McWaoHrER. @. T.:
1. In an ejectment suit the description Of
property in deed introduced - evidence must
correspond with the description Of the land GO
scribed in the Pleading sumciensiy g ssssoilsn
d not apparent from the language. parol proof
may be Introduced to show that although the
description Of the land In the deed and pleadInU
Il different yet that the same land h described
In both proof and pleadinge
9. In . suit In ejectment By the executor OF A.
for tract Of real estate Of which A. was proved
70 be 10 possession for . long time prior 10 his
death, the character In which such executor sues
not being denied, any possession by the executor
Of said real estate after the death Of A. and BE-
fore suit will be presumed 70 be by the execu
tor a. executor.
g. A plaintiff in ejectment may recover upon
R<>ocScot0H -
possession of the land without title.
4. It is not error TO refuse 70 admit In evidence
certified copy of judgment; an authenticated
copy of the whole record, or the record itself
should be produced.
8. A charge which ins,ruc.s the jury that .
deed which il In evidence shows q fee simple
title In an estate, is erroneous.
G. A charge to jury In suit In electment
by an executor Gs such, that they should find IN
their verdict that the plaintiff has fec simple ts1
In the land sued for, Is error.
2. A charge to jury which assumes the truth
usurps the prerogatiye of the jury.
6..Wten the description OF land sued for in
the pleadings is not supported by description in
the deed introduced as evidence, an instruction
to the jury that the deed shows title to the prop
erty in suit, 10 error
8. The act of December goth, 1859, aulhoriz-
ing recovery In AN action OF ejectment Of the
land in controversy, together with mesne profits"
combined the action of ejectment with the CON-
mon law action of trespass ot ct arnsis for mesne
profits.
10. In this action damages for the detention of
the land may be recovered from the initial date
of the detention to the trial of the cause.
II. Where A. went into possession of the land
In controversy on the 14th of June, 1880, and B.
took joint possession with A. on the 18th of De-
cember, 1883, and both are sued for the recovery
OF the lands and for mesne profits, a joint judg-
ment against them for profits prior to the time
OF their joint possession, and when A. alone was
IN possession, Is erroneous.
IL In the action for mesne profits damages
for waste and dilapidation. in addition to mesne
profits, may be recovered under proper allega-
lions in the declaration.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered.
Randall, Walkers & Foster, for Appellants !;
A. W. Cockrell & Son. for Appellees.
ND Il
8. Adams Appellee Appeal from Duval
county.
RANEY, j.:
Where part of street designated on q re-
corded plat of lots and streets, not within any
incorporated city or town, is claimed TO be pub
lie highway, and for upwards of thirteen years
such part OF the street has been enclosed and i'm
proved and occupied openly and continuously as
portion OF private premises, and during such
period it has not been used as highway, and
it is claimed adversely by the occupier the
County Commissioners have no mower under the
statutes, 10 remove the fences or other obstruc-
lions as public nuisance. The proper remedy in
behalf OF the public assuming the street to be
public highway, is by indictment.
Decree affirmed.
Hartridge & Young, for Appellants; A. w.
Cockrell q Son, for Appellee.
State ex rel. Ferdinand Bayer, Relator, VS.. j. G.
Gardner, County Judge Alachua county ct al
spondents-Prohibltio Alachua county.
RANEY, j.:
Section II of Art. vi of the Constitution, as
amended in 1875, provides that the County
Judges may also have aud exercise jurisdic-
ton of such proceedings relating to the forcible
entry or unlawful detention of lands and tene-
ments subject to the appellate jurisdiction OF the
Circuit Court, as may be provided BY law :"
Held, That future legislation was not necessary
to make such provision operative, but its purpose
aud effect were that the County Judges should ex-
ercise jurisdiction of such proceedings applica-
BILE to the named subjects, as either the then ex-
that the proceedings provided by the act of 1868
(Chapter 1880, may be enforced before such
judges.
Rule discharged and writ denied
F. E. Hughes for Relator; Ashby, Scott &
Thrasher, for Respondents.
Charles s. Adams, Administrator d. b. n. &C.,
Plaintiff In Error, VS.. Helen ReQua, for use
of, &c, Defendant in Error-Appeal from Du-
val county.
McWHoRTER, c. j..
1. The rule is settled that judgment rem
dered at one term, may be amended at subse-
quent term nunc pro tune, when from an inspec-
ton of the record in the cause, it is apparent
that the proposed amendment would have been
part of the original judgment or that the orig
inal judgment would have been in accordance
Herewith, had it not have been for the inadver-
tence of the court or an error or omission of the
clerk.
g. When suit is brought against an admins
traitor Of an estate and judgment rendered add
ing only after his name " administrators OF estate
of j. s. Adams" and the whole record shows
that the suit was based ON a claim or demand
against the deceased person of whose estate the
defendant is administrator the court will, on
motion, at subsequent term. permit the record
to be amended so as to show that the defendant
was sued and judgment rendered against him "Gs
administrator of J. 8. Adams, deceased"
Judgment affirmed.
A. W. Cockrell & Son, for Plaintiff in Error;
H. Bisbee, for Defendant In Error.
Michael Kurtz Plaintiff in Error, VS.. The State
of Florida, Defendant in Error-Appeal from
Duval county
McWHoRTER, G. j.
l. The act of the Legislature of the State of
Florida, of February 17th 1881, providing for
the arrest and detention of fugitives from justice
from other States is not in conflict with section
2, article 4, of the Constitution Of the United
States, or section 5278 and 1919 of the Revised
Statutes passed in pursuance thereof
g. 1t lie not necessary to consider the question
as to the right of the Governor of this State to
withhold the papers upon which he based his
warrant for the arrest OF an accused fugitive from
Justice when the record shows that the recusis
ton and accompanying papers from the Cover
nor of the State where the crime was committed,