Without the word "and" the corrected description could be used to identify a parcel of land although not through the familiar method of applying calls in the system of rectangular surveys. In Sanders v. Alford Bros., 92 Fla 710, 111 So. 278 (1926) the land was described as the "northeast 1/2 of the Northeast half" of a section. The court said: "There is no such description of a given section of land known to our system of describing lands."
Having assumed jurisdiction on this theory, the chancellor could retain it for all purposes, determine all matters presented and do complete justice as between the parties. See Doggett v. Hart, 5 Fla. 215, 58 Am. Dec. 464; Sommers v. Apalachicola Northern R. Co., 75 Fla. 159, 78 So. 25; Sanders v. Alford Brothers Co., 92 Fla. 718, 111 So. 278; Donegan v. Baker Holmes Co., 73 Fla. 241, 74 So. 202; Szabo v. Speckman, 73 Fla. 374, 74 So. 411, L.R.A. 1917D 357; Farrell v. Forest Investment Co., 73 Fla. 191, 74 So. 216; 1 A.L.R. 25; Commercial Bank of Ocala v. First National Bank of Gainesville, 75 Fla. 634, 79 So. 446; Commercial Bank of Ocala v. First National Bank, 80 Fla. 685, 87 So. 315. It is also contended that the husband must be joined as a co-plaintiff with his wife, not "as next friend," but "as husband."
Bonifay. Clearly, Steputat's affirmative defenses brought the second requirement into dispute, and a trial is required to resolve the disparate positions of the parties. Bidwell argues that the judgment should be affirmed on the authority of Sanders v. Alford Brothers Company, 92 Fla. 718, 111 So. 278 (1926). She asserts that Sanders establishes the rule that, where two parties both claim adverse possession, the one that has title should always be given possession by the court.