Case Name: D. K. Maynard, George Landon, Newton Harvey, Orange State Oil Company, v. Harriet E. Miller
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1938-03-08
Citations: 132 Fla. 269
Docket Number: 
Parties: D. K. Maynard, George Landon, Newton Harvey, Orange State Oil Company, v. Harriet E. Miller
Judges: Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J.,
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 132
Pages: 269–273

Head Matter:
D. K. Maynard, George Landon, Newton Harvey, Orange State Oil Company, v. Harriet E. Miller
182 So. 220.
Division B.
Opinion Filed March 8, 1938.
Rehearing Denied June 8, 1938.
Extraordinary Petition for Rehearing Denied July 1, 1938.
Randolph Calhoun, for Plaintiffs in Error;
John F. Burket, for Defendant in Error.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This writ of error brings before us for review a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, defendant in error here, against the defendants, who are plaintiffs in error here. The controlling question presented by this record is the sufficiency of the description of the property, as contained in the declaration, the deed under which the plaintiff claimed and the judgment. The case was tried before the court without a jury.
It is well settled in this jurisdiction 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. See Walker v. Lee, 55 Fla. 360, 41 So. 881. The trial court was evidently governed by this rule.
Other questions are raised and argued in the briefs, but it is sufficient to say that we find no reversible error in the record and the judgment of the court below will accordingly be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J.,
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, Ji J., concur in the opinion and judgment.