Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
PENSACOLA ICE COMPANY v. PERRY, 1887 — 120 U.S. 318 · caselaw · US
General
PENSACOLA ICE COMPANY v. PERRY
120 U.S. 31830 L. Ed. 663·Supreme Court of the United States·1887
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
PENSACOLA ICE COMPANY v. PERRY.
error to the circuit court of the united states FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF'FLORIDA.
Submitted December 20, 1886.
—Decided February 7, 1887.
It appearing by the record in this court that the Verdict at the trial of an action of ejectment in the Circuit Court of the United States sitting in Florida did not state the quantity of the estate or describe the land, the judgment was reversed and the canse remanded for a new trial.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court,
Mr. William A. Blount for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Wayne Me Veagh for defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite]
Mr. Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.
A statute of Florida, approved February 22, 1881, contains tlie following provisions:
“ Sec. A The verdict in actions of ejectment shall, when for the plaintiff, state the quantity of the estate of the plaintiff, and describe the land by its metes and bounds, by the number of the lot or other certain description.
“ Sec. 5. The judgment awarding possession shall, in like manner, state the quantity of the estate, and give description of the land recovered.”
This was an action of ejectment, and the verdict, which was fo.r the plaintiff, -did not state the quantity of the estate or describe the land. This is assigned for error, among others, and Perry, the defendant in error, in the brief which has been filed in his behalf, confesses that the judgment in hisffavor is thereby vitiated. Without considering any of the other errors, assigned, therefore, we reverse the judgment on this ground alone and remand the cause for a new trial. '
Reversed.