GEORGE W. RICHARDS, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN H. M. MORRIS, HOWARD M. GRISWOLD AND ABRAM G. MUNN, AS EXECUTORS OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF JOHN P. MORTON, DECEASED, APPELLEES
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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision that overruled a demurrer to a bill filed by executors seeking to remove tax deeds from property. The court held that executors must allege possession of the land at the time of filing the bill to maintain such an action, even when challenging the validity of tax deeds.
The court held that executors must allege possession of the lands at the time of filing the bill to remove a cloud on title, even when the cloud consists of tax deeds alleged to be void due to irregularities in the tax sale proceedings. The failure to make such an allegation is a valid ground for demurrer.
“Conceding that appellees have the right to file a bill to remove a cloud from the title to the lands under the will of their testator, in reference to which there is no contention before us, we are of the opinion that the ground of the demurrer stated was good under the decisions of this court”
Establishes that while executors have the right to file cloud-on-title bills, a specific requirement regarding possession must be met
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn P. Morton died in Louisville, Kentucky on July 19, 1889, seized of lands in Sumter County, Florida. Morton's will named the appellees as executor…
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
Maury, -J.:
In June, 1892, appellees, as executors of the last •will and testament of John P. Morton, deceased, filed a bill against appellant to remove tax deeds held by him and of record to certain described lands situated in Sumter county, Florida.
The bill alleges that John P. Morton departed this life in Louisville, Kentucky, on the 19th day of July, 1889, seized in fee and possessed of the lands, and that he left a last will and testament, in which appellees were named as executors, and that said will was duly admitted to probate in the County Court of Jefferson county, State of Kentucky, as shown by a certified copy of the will and probate thereof, duly authenticated under the act of Congress, and made a part of the bill. It is further alleged that the lands were sold for taxes and appellant acquired tax deeds for the same, but that said deeds were void-and conveyed no legal title by reason of various specified irregularities and defects in the tax sale proceedings, though under the laws of this State said deeds were prima facie valid, and cast a cloud upon the title to said lands. 'The bill specifies in detail the defects and irregularities in the tax proceedings relied on as grounds for .avoiding the tax deeds, but there is no allegation that the lands were wild, unimproved and unoccupied, or that complainants were in possession of the lands at any time after the death of théir cestatoi’, and before ' the filing of the bill.
A demurrer to the bill was overruled, and from this ruling an appeal, was taken.
The sole contention in this court is based upon the second ground of the demurrer, which is that there is no allegation that complainants, appellees here, were in possession of the lands at the time of filing-the bill. Conceding-that appellees have the right to file a bill to remove a cloud from the title to the lands under the will of their testator, in reference to which there is no contention before us, we are of the opinion that the ground of the demurrer stated was good under the decisions of this court, and that the court erred in overruling the demurrer. Sloan vs. Sloan, 25 Fla. 53, 5 South. Rep. 603; Haworth vs. Norris, 28 Fla. 763, 10 South. Rep. 18; Patton vs. Crumpler, 29 Fla. 573, 11 South. Rep. 225; Graham vs. Florida Land & Mortgage Co., 33 Fla. 356, 14 South. Rep. 796; Watson vs. Holliday, 37 Fla. 488, 19 South. Rep. 640.
The decree of the court below is reversed, with directions that the demurrer be sustained, and complainants have leave to amend the bill if they desire to do so.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clem v. Meserole, 44 Fla. 191 (Fla. 1902)…10, 16 South. Rep. 606; Woodford v. Alexander, 35 Fla. 333, 17 South. Rep. 658; Levy v. Ladd, 35 Fla. 391, 17 South. Rep. 635; Brown v. Solary, 37 Fla. 102, 19 South. Rep. 161; Watson v. Holliday, 37 Fla. 488, 19 South. Rep. 640; Richards v. Morris, 39 Fla. 205, 22 South. Rep. 650. There was, therefore', no error in sustaining the demurrer to the bill. It is, therefore, hereby considered, ordered and adjudged that the decree of the court below appealed from in said cause be and the 'same is hereby, affirme…
-
Mitchell v. Furman, 180 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1901)
Authorities Cited
- Sloan v. Sloan, 25 Fla. 53 (Fla. 1889)
- Alphonso Haworth v. Norris, 28 Fla. 763 (Fla. 1891)
- Graham v. The Fla. Land & Mortg. Co., 33 Fla. 356 (Fla. 1894)
- Patton v. Crumpler, 29 Fla. 573 (Fla. 1892)
- Watson v. Holliday, 37 Fla. 488 (Fla. 1896)