J. R. W. GRISSOM, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES C. FURMAN, TRUSTEE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this ejectment case, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment in favor of the trustee against the defendant's claim based on a tax deed. The court held that a tax deed with reversed township and range numbers is void because it fails to describe land actually assessed for taxation.
The tax deed is void because the clerk could only issue a deed for land actually assessed by the assessor, and the reversed township and range numbers in the deed meant it did not describe the assessed land. Additionally, both the tax deed and assessment roll contained fatally defective descriptions by stating only 'fractional part section 4' without designating which part of the section was assessed.
“the clerk could only make a deed to the lands assessed by the assessor. A deed by him to any other lands is a nullity, and is not a deed "made in pursuance of a sale of land for taxes."”
Establishes the fundamental principle that a tax deed clerk's authority is strictly limited to assessed lands; deeds to other lands are void.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames C. Furman, as trustee, brought an ejectment action to recover a tract of land in Alachua County described as fractional section 4, township 11, …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Tax Deed Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
The Chiee-Justice delivered the opinion of the court:
Suit in ejectment by appellee, James C. Eurman, Trustee of Mary G. D. Furman, for a tract of land in Alachua county. The plaintiff introduced evidence of title to the land in suit, to wit: Eractional section 4,township 11, south, range 21, east. The defendant introduced a tax deed made to him by W. H. Belton, Clerk of the Circuit Court, dated June 4, 1874, to the following described land : “ Fractional part of section 4, township 11, range 21.” Counsel for the plaintiff then introduced the assessment roll of Alachua county, for the year 1873, for the purpose of showing that the land sued for and described in the defendant’s tax deed had never been assessed. To the introduction of the assessment roll the defendant objected. The assessment roll showed the following lands assessed to Eurman : “ Fractional part of section 4, township 21, range 11.” It will be seen that the township and range numbers as assessed had been reversed in the tax deed. We decided in Carncross vs. Lylces, at present term, that the clerk could only make a deed to the lands assessed by the assessor. A deed by him to any other lands is a nullity, and is not a deed “ made in pursuance of a sale of land for taxes.”
The description of the land, both in the tax deed and the assessment roll, is fatally defective as to the locality of the land. They say “fractional part section 4.” There is nothing to designate what part of the section was assessed or sold.
There was no error in allowing the introduction of the assessment roll. We do not think it necessary to notice the other questions presented.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Addison P. McKeown v. Collins, 38 Fla. 276 (Fla. 1896)…., 5 South. Rep. 603. And likewise of a sale where there had been no assessment (Townsend vs. Edwards, 25 Fla. 582, 6 South. Rep. 212), or where the calls of the deed are materially different from the land on the assessment roll. Grissom vs. Furman, 22 Fla. 581; Carncross vs. Lykes, 22 Fla. 587. The provisions of the statute of limitations do not apply where the land was not assessed to the owner or occupant, or to an unknown owner, and by an official and accurate description. Bird vs. Benlisa, 142 U. S. 6…
-
Levy v. Ladd, 35 Fla. 391 (Fla. 1895)…ollector’s advertisement of sale and in his certificate of tax sale, and in. the tax deed. The description in the assessment roll and that in the certificate and tax deed are not at all the same. Carncross vs. Lykes, 22 Fla. 587; Grissom vs. Furman, 22 Fla. 581. It is further void because the amount of taxes assessed upon each of the separate and several tracts of land are not set down in separate columns opposite each respective tract, but the total taxes assessed upon all the aggregated tracts alone is g…
-
Fla. Fin. Co. v. Sheffield, 56 Fla. 285 (Fla. 1908)…hapter 1976, acts of 1874, will not apply to- a suit to set aside a void deed or to recover possession of land attempted to be conveyed thereby. McKeown v. Collins, 38 Fla. 276, 21 South. Rep. 103; Carncross v. Lykes, 22 Fla. 587; Grissom v. Furman, 22 Fla. 581; Sloan v. Sloan, 25 Fla. 53, 5 South. Rep. 603; Townsend v. Edwards, 25 ib. 582, 6 South. Rep. 212. Under these statutes, the limitation ran from the recording of the tax deed. They required no actual possession of the [*292] land by the holder of t…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence