Spear v. MacDonald

67 So. 2d 630, 1953 Fla. LEXIS 1680
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedOctober 20, 1953
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 67 So. 2d 630 (Spear v. MacDonald) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Spear v. MacDonald, 67 So. 2d 630, 1953 Fla. LEXIS 1680 (Fla. 1953).

Opinion

67 So.2d 630 (1953)

SPEAR et al.
v.
MacDONALD et al.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division B.

October 20, 1953.

John A. Chilldon, Tampa, for petitioners.

Brown, Brown & Corcoran and Fowler, White, Gillen, Yancey & Humkey, Tampa, for respondents.

DREW, Justice.

Petitioners, plaintiffs below, petition for certiorari to review an interlocutory order of the lower court dismissing a complaint for reformation of three deeds and a mortgage.

Omitting the formal parts, the complaint is as follows:

*631 "1. That for sometime prior to February 2, 1950, the plaintiffs, J. Raymond Spear and H. Evelyn Spear, were the owners of the following described property located in Hillsborough County, Florida, to-wit: The W 514 1/2 ft. of the E 1/2 of NE 1/4; N 3/4 of the W 1/2 of the NE 1/4 and the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 23, Township 27 South, Range 18 East.

"That your plaintiffs have attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked Exhibit I an approximate sketch of said parcels for the purpose of showing unto this court the location of the parcels with respect to each other.

"2. That thereafter the plaintiffs, J. Raymond Spear and H. Evelyn Spear, contracted with the plaintiffs, Erwin R. Pohlman and Irene E. Pohlman, to sell them a part of said land containing approximately fourteen acres and having approximately 1300 ft. of lake front, and contracted with the plaintiffs, Hugh P. Gibson and Bertha L. Gibson, to sell them a part of said land containing approximately one acre and having approximately 150 ft. of lake front.

"That as said land had not been subdivided the plaintiffs pencilled in on a copy of an aerial photo, the original of which is on file in the tax assessor's office, the portions of said land intended to be sold, and thereafter the plaintiffs, J. Raymond Spear and H. Evelyn Spear, procured the services of a registered surveyor to make a sketch of a portion of said property setting out thereon the dimensions thereof and a description of said property so that proper deeds could be drawn.

"That attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked Exhibit II, is a copy of said sketch and it was the intention of all plaintiffs that the South 150 feet of the land shown on said sketch was to be sold to said plaintiffs, Hugh P. Gibson and Bertha L. Gibson, and the remainder thereof to the plaintiffs, Erwin R. Pohlman and Irene E. Pohlman.

"3. That pursuant to the description given by said surveyors the plaintiffs, J. Raymond Spear and H. Evelyn Spear, by deed dated February 2, 1950 and recorded June 13, 1950, in Deed Book 1579, page 100, of the Public Records of Hillsborough County, Florida, conveyed to the Plaintiffs, Erwin R. Pohlman and Irene E. Pohlman, the property described as follows: NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 23, Township 27 South, Range 18 East; and the West 370 ft. of the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 less the South 150 ft. thereof in Section 23, Township 27 South, Range 18 East, according to map or plat thereof recorded in the public records of Hillsborough County, Florida.

"That at the time of execution and delivery of said deed it was the intention of the parties that the plaintiffs, Erwin R. Pohlman and Irene E. Pohlman, were getting title to all the property shown on Plaintiffs' Exhibit II, except the southernmost 150 feet thereof, especially with reference to the amount of lake front shown; it being understood that the lake front footage imparted greater value to the land and that the plaintiffs, Erwin R. Pohlman and Irene E. Pohlman, would not have purchased said land were it not for the amount of the lake front footage.

"4. That pursuant to the description given by said surveyors the plaintiffs, J. Raymond Spear and H. Evelyn Spear, by deed dated February 2, 1950 and recorded on February 17, 1950, in Deed Book 1561, page 237 of the Public Records of Hillsborough County, Florida, conveyed to the plaintiffs, Hugh P. Gibson and Bertha L. Gibson, the property described as follows: The South 150 ft. of the West 370 ft. of the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 23, Township 27 South, Range 18 East, as recorded in the public records of Hillsborough County, Florida.

"That at the time of execution and delivery of said deed it was the intention of the parties that the plaintiffs, Hugh P. Gibson and Bertha L. Gibson, were getting title to the southernmost 150 feet of the property shown on Plaintiffs' Exhibit II, especially with reference to the amount of lake front shown; it being understood that *632 the lake front footage imparted greater value to the land and that the plaintiffs, Hugh P. Gibson and Bertha L. Gibson, would not have purchased said land were it not for the amount of the lake front footage.

"5. That after the execution and delivery of the deed referred to in paragraph 3 hereof the plaintiffs, Erwin R. Pohlman and Irene E. Pohlman, took possession of the property intended to be conveyed to them by the plaintiffs, J. Raymond Spear and H. Evelyn Spear, and cleared and bulldozed the same which at the time of their taking was uncultivated; and are still in possession of said property.

"6. That after the execution and delivery of the deed referred to in paragraph 4, hereof, the plaintiffs, Hugh P. Gibson and Bertha L. Gibson, took possession of the said land and built a ditch near the southernmost tip of the property, shown on Plaintiffs' Exhibit II, for the purpose of draining other land which they owned, which other land adjoined to the west the property intended to be conveyed to them by the plaintiffs, J. Raymond Spear and H. Evelyn Spear; and are still in possession of the same.

"7. That after the plaintiffs, Erwin R. Pohlman and wife Irene E. Pohlman and Hugh P. Gibson and wife, Bertha L. Gisson, took possession of the property shown on Plaintiffs' Exhibit II and improved the same as set out in paragraphs 5 and 6 hereof, the plaintiffs, J. Raymond Spear and H. Evelyn Spear, entered into negotiations with the defendant, J. Clifford MacDonald, for the sale to said J. Clifford MacDonald and Georgie G. MacDonald, of the remainder of the property owned by said plaintiffs, J. Raymond Spear and H. Evelyn Spear, a description of which property is set out in paragraph 1 hereof. That during the negotiations the defendant, J. Clifford MacDonald, was shown plaintiffs' Exhibit II and informed that the property outlined thereon was not to be included in the sale and he was further taken over said property and the said property sketched in plaintiffs' Exhibit II was actually shown to him so that he knew that the parcels of which the plaintiffs, Erwin R. Pohlman and Irene E. Pohlman, his wife, and Hugh P. Gibson and wife Bertha L. Gibson, had taken possession were not to be included in the sale to him.

"8. That thereafter by deed dated October 15, 1951, recorded on the 15th day of October, 1951, in Deed Book 1649, page 54, of the public records of Hillsborough County, Florida, the plaintiffs, J. Raymond Spear and H. Evelyn Spear, conveyed to the defendant, J. Clifford MacDonald and wife Georgie G. MacDonald, the remainder of the property owned by him which was described in said deed as follows: E 1/2 of the NE 1/4, less East 805.5 feet thereof; the E 1/2 of W 1/2 of the NE 1/4; the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 and the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, less: Begin at NW corner of the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, and run thence South 510 ft. more or less, to a point 150 ft. North of the SW corner of the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, thence East 370 ft. thence run North 510 ft. more or less to North line of said tract, thence run West along North line of said tract 370 ft.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gee v. US BANK NAT. ASS'N
72 So. 3d 211 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Gee v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n
72 So. 3d 211 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Professional Transportation, Inc.
467 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (M.D. Florida, 2006)
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Sook Hyung Kim
898 So. 2d 250 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Saglio v. Chrysler First Commercial Corp.
839 F. Supp. 830 (M.D. Florida, 1993)
Bird Lakes Dev. v. Meruelo
626 So. 2d 234 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Sunset Centres Ltd. Partnership v. Star Value Boynton, Inc.
592 So. 2d 366 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Prentice v. Pigate
588 So. 2d 5 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Providence Square Ass'n v. Biancardi
507 So. 2d 1366 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1987)
Belitz v. Riebe
495 So. 2d 775 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Biggs v. Biggs
452 So. 2d 129 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Ayr v. Chance
372 So. 2d 1000 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
Allstate Insurance Company v. Vanater
297 So. 2d 293 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1974)
RC 17 CORP. v. Korenblit
207 So. 2d 296 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)
Nielsen v. Paneil, Inc.
202 So. 2d 894 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
Rucks v. Ansin
198 So. 2d 662 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
Jeffrey's, Inc. v. Restaurants, Inc.
158 So. 2d 540 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1963)
Roberts v. Pfeiffer
135 So. 2d 246 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1961)
Cushman v. Schubert
110 So. 2d 703 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1959)
Forsythe v. Spielberger
86 So. 2d 427 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 So. 2d 630, 1953 Fla. LEXIS 1680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spear-v-macdonald-fla-1953.