GEORGE T. GAINES, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM L. RUSS, 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.
Russ sought to cancel a tenancy agreement signed under alleged duress and void a tax deed, but the Florida Supreme Court held that the County Judge's determination of tenancy was conclusive and the bill stated no equity once tenancy was established.
The Court held that the County Judge's judgment establishing tenancy was conclusive absent direct appellate reversal, and therefore Russ's bill stated no equity. The demurrer should have been sustained.
“The defense of duress appears to have been made in the County Judge's court in the tenancy proceedings there, and the judgment of that court is conclusive as to the tenancy if not reversed in direct appellate proceedings”
Establishes that the County Judge's determination of tenancy was final and could only be overturned through direct appeal, not through a separate equity proceeding
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRuss arranged to purchase and moved onto certain lands. After partially moving in, Gaines claimed the property under a tax deed dated August 3, 1909, …
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 Sale Notice Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
In a bill in equity brought by William L. Russ against George T. Gaines, it is in brief alleged that the complainant is the owner in fee simple and is in possession of certain described lands; that while arranging for the purchase of the lands he moved on and took possession thereof; “that while in the act of moving as aforesaid and after a portion of his personal property had been moved into the premises, the defendant laid claim urider a tax deed dated August 3, 1909, to the premises and demanded that the complainant sign an instrument the purport of which was that complainant was a tenant of the defendant in possession, stating that unless the instrument was signed as requested, he would have complainant put off the place at once; that owing to his ignorance of the law governing such cases and the further and urgent fact that he had a sick wife and six children to care for and had no other home than the premises in question to take them to, signed the instrument under protest;” that under the landlord and tenant act, the defendant obtained a judgment of eviction against complainant in the County Judge’s court by reason of the instrument signed as aforesaid; that the tax deed issued to defendant is void because the notice of the application for the tax deed was not mailed to the owner of the land as required by law. It is prayed that the instrument signed by complainant he cancelled as having been obtained under duress; that the tax deed be declared void on the payment to defendant of his proper costs and expenses thereon; that the defendant be enjoined from asserting title to the land; that the sheriff be enjoined from executing the said judgment of the County Judge’s court; and for general relief.
The answer averred the ownership of the defendant, the tenancy of the complainant, the adjudication by the County Judge upon the question of duress as affecting the tenancy, and that the clerk made diligent inquiry for the address of the owner of the land without obtaining it when the tax deed was issued. A demurrer was incorporated in the answer based upon the adjudicated tenancy of the complainant.
An appeal is taken from an order overruling the demurrer and enjoining the sheriff from executing the judgment of the County J udge’s court.
A temporary injunction should be specially prayed for. See Savage v. Parker, 53 Fla., 1002, 13 South. Rep., 507.
The defense of duress appears to have been made in the County Judge’s court in the tenancy proceedings there, and the judgment of that court is conclusive as to the tenancy if not reversed in direct appellate proceedings, See Torrey v. Bruner decided this term. The order restraining the sheriff from executing the judgment of the county Judge’s court was erroneous.
As the complainant has been adjudged to be in posses sion as a tenant the bill of complaint states no equity, and-the demurrer should have been sustained.
The order appealed from is reversed.
Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur. Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harbor v. Lancaster, 70 Fla. 200 (Fla. 1915)…th. Rep. 822. Whether the bill be considered as one to1 enjoin a trespass or to remove a cloud on the complainants title, it contains no specific prayer for a temporary injunction. Savage v. Parker, 53 Fla. 1002, 43 South. Rep. 507; Gaines v. Russ, 60 Fla. 317, 53 South. Rep. 113; Equity Rule 25. Nor is there any prayer for general relief contained in the bill. It was held in the case of Builders Supply Co. v. Acton, supra, that before granting a temporary injunction or restraining order without notice,…
-
Ex parte Sirmans, 94 Fla. 832 (Fla. 1927)…he one first exercising such jurisdiction acquires control to the exclusion of the other.” Sanford v. State, 75 Fla. 393, 78 Sou. 340; Ray v. Williams Phosphate Co., 59 Fla. 598, 52 Sou. 589; Byrne v. Brown, 40 Fla. 109, 23 Sou. 877; Gaines v. Ruse, 60 Fla. 317, 53 Sou. 113; Johnson v. Lindsey, Sheriff, 89 Fla. 143, 103 Sou. 419, and cases there cited; Wade et al. v. Clower, decided at the present term; Taylor v. Taintor, U. S. Sup. Court Reports, 21 Law Ed. 287, 34 C. J. 875. The question of whether or n…
-
Taylor v. Merwin, 145 Fla. 252 (Fla. 1940)…bject to collateral attack. See Mitchell v. Bogue, 142 Fla. 787, 196 Sou. 306; 11 R. C. L., paragraph 436, page 367, Alabama Hotel Co. v. J. J. Matt Iron Works, 86 Fla. 608, 98 Sou. 825; Lord v. Dowling Co., 52 Fla. 313, 42 Sou, 585; Gaines v. Russ, 60 Fla. 317, 53 Sou. 113; Malone v. Meres, 91 Fla. 490, 107 Sou. 625; Einstein, et al., v. Davidson, 35 Fla. 342, 17 Sou. 563; Kroier v. Kroier, 95 Fla. 865, 116 Sou. 753; Marick v. Merritt, 21 Fla. 21. Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed. So ord…
Authorities Cited
- Savage v. Parker, 53 Fla. 1002 (Fla. 1907)