The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1909-01-28

Or competency, not its prObative
force.
Decree affirmed
BlounJ & Blount & Carter and T. r.
West for appellant; H S Laird for
appellee
Santa Rosa Land Case.
The Skinner Manufacturing Com
pany, a corporation, plaintiff in error.
V. Lum Wright, defendant in error.
Santa Rosa county Whitfield, T.:
l. The legal title TO land is con-
veyed by the execution of a deed pur-
suant to the statute of frauds and
the operation thereon of the statute
of uses. both of which statutes were
enacted by the Territorial Council in
1928 and are brought forward in the
general statutes as section PAS and
2455- Title to lands may also be &C
quiTed by continued adverse posses
sion and occupation for the period and
under tae circumst aHees stated ia
the statutes.
, In an action of ejectmcnt the
plaintiff must recover on the strength
OF his own title and not on the weak
ness of the title of the defendant. The
plainuff cannot recover even as
against one without title unless he
SHOWS title or prior possession.
) To recover possession of land
in an action of ejectment against one
in actual possession, the plaintiff
should show title in himself and a
right 10 the possession. or that he had
been in actual bona f1de possession of
the land and was OUstcd by the de-
PENDANT.
/. Wlere the plaintiff N ejectment
undertakes to show title in himself
source or from one having possession
and a right to convey the title
,. In an action of ejectment where
the plaintiff fails TO show title in
himself and the evidence as to prior
possession is conflicting, tde finding
of the jury for the defendant will not
be disturbed where there is evidence
to sustain the verdict and the rulings
of the court in rejecting testimony
did not cause the failure Of the plain
tiff TO make out his case.
Judgment affirmed
Ernest Amos, for plaintiff in error;
Blount & BlOunt & Carter, for de-
PENDANT in error.
Walton County Case.
Davis Clary, plaintiff in error V. j.
NJ. IsOm, defendant in error, Walton
county. Taylor, J.:
Evidence. ITrelevancy. Pleading.
Charges. Reiterating.
l. Where a demurrer to A plea is
sustained, and the defendant again
files substantially the same plea but
makes it more full and explicit. and
issue is joined and the trial had there I
on, the propriety of the ruling on such |
demurrer will not be considered by |
the appellate court on writ of error. |
>. Evidence that is not pertinent |
to any issue in a cause is properly ex- |
cluded.
3. When an excerpt from charge |
is assigned as error. if the whole |
charge, considered in its entirety, /
states the law correctly, such assign |
ment of error cannot be sustained.
4. 1t is not error to refuse to re- |
iterate a charge already given.
Judgment affirmed.
Daniel Campbell & Son and S. X !
ellis, for plaintiff in error; Avery &
Avery and w. w. Flournoy, for de-
fendant in error.
Walton County Case.
The Florala Sawmill Company, a
plaintiff in error, v Britt
Carson Shoe Co, a corporation, de-
iendant in error, Walton county. Tay-
OT, j
Amending Declaration After Yer
Charges
l. There is no error in permitting
he plaintin to amend his declaration
ly the addition thereto of an ad dam |
lum clause, after verdict but before
entry of judgment.
2 1t is not error to refuse to give
/ requested instruction when the sub
stance thereof has already been given
N charge.
Judgment affirmed.
e. ,Iniv I
if in error; S. K ellis, for defend
ant in error.
Jackson County Mortgage Case.
J. r. Shoemaker and J. w Hinson
partners as ]. r. Shoemaker & Co,
plaintiffs in error. Y. T. H. Waters
and r. F. Davis. partners as Waters
E Davis, defendants in error, Jackson
county. COCkTeU. J..
I. A mortgage for advancement
IDOn crops is sufficiently definite in
description that covers "all cotton,