The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1918-05-18
SUPREME COURT
PASSES ON THREE
IMPORTANT CASES

TALL AHASSEE, May 16.-(Special.)
THE supreme court has affirmed the
orders Of lite circuit court for Dade
county in the case OF ANNA III. Shone,
Alice z. WeaIhereil. j. w. Carey, Mrs.
j, serh FL. Day, Mrs. w. r. Ammo, Mrs.
Forrest Lake ana husband, Forest Lake
Mrs. Julien Carrenter and husband,
Julien Carpenter. Thomas NJ. gilbert
son and Vernon Prince-Williams, APP
peialnts VS. Theresa Bellmore and Sam
uel Rhodes, minor, by Theresa Bell
more. his motter, and next friend, ap-
pelIees. The opinion is by Mr.. Justice
Ellis. The court holds that a demurrer
addressed to the entire bill of COM
plant will be Q, erruled if the bill con-
| tains any equitable ground or basis Tor
| tile relief sought. A demurrer TO a
blu in equity operates as an admission
| that all such matters of fact as are well
ard sufficiently pleaded in the bill are
true, but allegations of law are not
| ADMITTED. by the demurrer. head Of
O family, who Is the owner Of a home
stead cannot by his will bar the inter
est of his wife and children in the
| homestead. A posthumous child OF a
| man who is the owner Of a homestead
| in this state is included among the
heirs to whom the exemptions provid-
ed by article X of the constitution in
ure. An allegation in a bill of COM
plant that the deceased was at the
| time of his death the owner of certain
lands lying in a body, which with his
wife he occupied as their homestead is
sufficiently certain to present an issue
J as to whether the land occupied by the
deceased at the time of his death was
| his homestead. The mere plating of
1 land not within the limits Of an incor-
porated city or town, and sale of lots
| according to such plat, which land is
owned by the head of family and oc-
supied by them as their homestead
does not destroy its character as a
| homestead nor conclusively show an
abandonment of the homestead by the
| owner.
! The attorneys representing the appel
! lants are Atkinson and Burdine; and
| Il attorneys representing the appellees
are Carson and Pine and r. B. Gautier
| The supreme court has reversed the
| decree of the circuit court for Hills
| borough county in the case OF Picture
Plays Theatre Company, appellant, VS..
| ". t. Williams, appellee The opinion
| is by Mr.. Chief Justice Browne. The
court holds that an answer IN cnan-
CtIy 10 DOlfI ulStONtEg anu IL
ing. As to matters of discovery 1t is
evidence for the defendant; as to mat
tiers of pleading it is not. An answer
to chancery, although positive, and di-
reetly responsive to an allegation in
/ this bill, may be outweighed, by cir
cumstances, especially if it be respect
ing fact which, in the nature OF
things, cannot be within the personal
knowledge of the defendant. New mat
ter, or matter merely in CONCESSION and
avoidance, relates to acts, transactions
or happenings which occur subsequent
to the acts complained of in the bill
and which do not form a part or the
original contract or transaction, but are
independent of it; and relate to a diff
ferent transaction. Where such new
matters are set out in the answer, they
are not such responsive averments as
will be taken as true when the case is
heard on BILL answer and replication.
But where the averments relate to, or
are a part of the original act, contract
or transaction upon which complaint
predicates his cause of action, or are
concerning matters stated or inquired
of in the bill, and state all the particu-
lars of the acts, contracts or transac-
tions charged and inquired into by the
bill, they are responsive. On final
hearing of cause in equity upon bin,
answer and replication, after the time
for taking testimony has expired, every
allegation in the answer responsive toI
the bill is taken as true. Where an an;
swer is confined to such facts as are
necessarily required by the bill, and
those inseparably connected with them,
forming a part of one and the same
transaction, the answer is responsive to,
Ia
when it charges the defendant. The
attorneys representing the appellant
were Mckay, Withers and Phipps; and
Shackleford and Shaekleford represent
ed the appellee.
The court has reversed the judgment
of the circuit court for Lee county in
the case of McGuel Morals, plaintiff in
error vs.. Julia X. Mathewson joined
by her husband, p. B. Matheson, de-
PENDANTS in error. The opinion is by
Mr. Justice Ellis. The court holds that
where a grantor in a deed of convey
ance containing a warranty of title
has no title to the land which he I'M
dertakes to convey by his warranty
deed, but subsequently acquires title
thereto. such title passes go Instant tol
the grantee in the first deed r. and
wife having no title to certain land
undertook Dy warranty deco to con-
vey it to NJ. Subsequently r and wife
acquired the title and upon Ms request
she and her husband executed a deed
of conveyance therfor to Ms wife. At
the time Of the last transaction NJ and
his family were living upon the land
as their homestead. Held, that no title
was conveyed to Ms wife by the sec
ond deed executed by r.. and his wife,
but upon the acquisition OF the title
by RS wife 1t passed to NJ by the first
warranty deed executed by r. and his
wife to NJ. Section 1924 of the general
statutes providing that the title of any