Judges: PER CURIAM. —
Attorneys: Spear, Viney Skelton, of St. Petersburg, Attorneys for Plaintiff in Error;
Carey Askew, of St. Petersburg, Attorneys for Defendant in Error.
Filed: Jun. 23, 1933
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This is an action in which the plaintiff in error filed a declaration setting up that he had purchased of the defendant in error certain lands in Pinellas County and for which the defendant in error had executed and delivered to him a warranty deed warranting that, among other things, the land was free from all encumbrances and liens of every nature and kind whatsoever, "including taxes," and the plaintiff further alleged that the lands were not free from all liens and encumbrances at the time o
Summary: This is an action in which the plaintiff in error filed a declaration setting up that he had purchased of the defendant in error certain lands in Pinellas County and for which the defendant in error had executed and delivered to him a warranty deed warranting that, among other things, the land was free from all encumbrances and liens of every nature and kind whatsoever, "including taxes," and the plaintiff further alleged that the lands were not free from all liens and encumbrances at the time of..
More
Nothing in the opinion heretofore adopted and filed by this Court will preclude the institution of appropriate proceedings in equity for the reformation of the deed whose covenants have been sued on, if defendant in error conceives that he is able to allege and prove such sufficient facts as will warrant reformation of the deed. Such was the procedure approved in Capital City Bank v. Hilson, 64 Fla. 206, 60 Sou. Rep. 189, Ann. Cas. 1914B 1211, after this Court in an earlier suit at law had already construed the legal effect of the written contract involved, against the complainant seeking reformation. For first decision see Capital City Bank v. Hilson, 59 Fla. 215, 51 Sou. Rep. 853.
Our previous opinion which has been announced in the present case, is clearly to the effect that if reformation of the deed here involved is required, a court of equity, and not a court of law, must be resorted to by the injured party
for such reformation. To that opinion we continue to adhere and deny the extraordinary petition for rehearing.
Extraordinary petition for rehearing denied.
DAVIS, C. J., WHITFIELD, TERRELL, BROWN and BUFORD, J. J., concur.
ELLIS, J., did not participate in this case.
Opinion by Circuit Judge Albritton.
