# Brown v. Semple

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · November 21, 1967 · 204 So. 2d 229

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7425016

## Case

- **Full name:** Mamie M. BROWN and Eldred E. Brown, her husband v. Mary E. L. SEMPLE, an unmarried woman and Irnodo, Inc., a Florida corporation
- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** November 21, 1967
- **Citations:** 204 So. 2d 229; 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4099
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Pearson
- **Judges:** Carroll, Hendry, Pearson
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7425016

## Opinion text

PEARSON, Judge
(concurring specially).
I concur in the opinion of the majority but wish to add one further point. One of appellants’ contentions is that the lower court erred when it quieted title without first submitting an issue in ejectment to a jury. Section 66.16 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. provides for a trial by jury only in the event that a defendant in the case is in actual possession of any part of the land involved in the suit. The chancellor must determine, upon proper proof, whether or not a defendant in the cause is in actual possession of any part of the property before a trial by jury is awarded, and then the trial by jury is made to apply only to that part of the land which is in the possession of the defendants. Albury v. Drummond, 95 Fla. 265 , 116 So. 236 (1928).
Appellant admits that in the instant case there is a genuine dispute as to the physical location of the property involved because of conflicting government surveys. While the appellant might show physical possession of certain property, it would be impossible to show that such property is encompassed within a certain description. The chancellor, because of the errors in the surveys, would be unable to determine what land was actually possessed by the appellants. Therefore, it would be impossible to ascertain the land subject to trial by jury.
The chancellor was correct when he entered a decree quieting title and reserved to the parties their rights to determine boundary issues before a court of competent jurisdiction.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7425016. Public record. Not legal advice.