STATE OF FLORIDA, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF SUWANNEE COUNTY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
J. B. BARTON, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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's judgment that found a fatal variance between a bail bond notice and the bond itself. The court held that the bond's condition to appear on a specific date within the spring term did not constitute a fatal variance when the spring term was adjourned to that date.
No, there was no fatal variance. The bond's condition to appear on June 21, 1915, was consistent with the notice for the Spring Term, A.D. 1915, because the court's spring term was duly adjourned to that specific date.
“The court gave judgment, for the defendants upon a ruling that there was a fatal variance between the notice and the bond.”
Describes the lower court's ruling that led to the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA notice was issued for proceedings to estreat a bail bond conditioned to appear at the Spring Term, A.D. 1915. The bond offered in evidence was condi…
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.
Per Curiam.
In proceedings tp-estreat, a.bail bond the notice was of a bond given conditioned “to appear at the •-Spring /TemvA. Dr I9‘i5, of the Circuit Court for Suwannee Count}' and from day to day and term to' term to answer a charge” etc. The bond offered in evidence was conditioned to appear “oil.Monday-the gist day of June, A. D. 1915, at eleven o’clock A. M., being a day of the next term-.of/said ‘ court for Suwannee County, and from day to day and from term to term to answer to a charge” etc. ,-T,he court gave-judgment, for the defendants upon a ruling that there was a fatal variance between the notice and the bond. The State took writ of error. It appears that the spring term of the court had been adjourned May 21st, 1915, to June 21st, 1915, and that the bond was executed on May 21st, 1915, conditioned to appear “on Monday the 21st day of June, A. D. 1915.” The notice of proceedings to estreat a bond conditioned “to appear at the Spring Term, A. D. 1915,” did not show a variance upon the production of a bond conditioned as above stated, when a session of the spring term of the court began on June 2rst, 1915, in due course.
Reversed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Shackleford, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ranger Realty Co. v. Caspar Hefty, 112 Fla. 654 (Fla. 1933)…ontain the following: “Provided, however, that said land shall continue subject and liable for any unpaid taxes thereon.” This is not an action at law concerning title to land claimed under a tax deed as in McLeod v. Williams, et al., 73 Fla. 338, 74 So. 408; Nail, et al., v. Browning, 73 Fla. 316, 74 So. 315; Tax Securities Corp. v. Borland, 103 Fla. 63; 137 So. 151; and other similar cases. Those who seek equitable relief must do equity; and equity follows the law. The rule is that in suits to set a…
-
Clark v. Cochran, 79 Fla. 788 (Fla. 1920)…. But where the primafacie effect given a tax deed even by statute is overcome, it is the duty of the party claiming under it to show its validity. Clark-Ray-Johnson Co. v. Williford, 62 Fla. 453, 56 South. Rep. 938; McLeod v. Williams, 73 Fla. 338, 74 South. Rep. 408. The plaintiffs requested the court to give the following instructions: “1. I charge you that the tax deeds introduced by the defendants, are null and void, and conveyed no legal title to the lands in question to the Franklin County Lum [*802] ber…
-
Locke v. Stuart, 113 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)…evidence which would require a directed verdict in his favor if presented at trial, the motion should be granted. Christianson v. Gaines, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 15, 174 F. 2d 534; Miller v. Hoffman, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 290. In McLeod v. Williams, 73 Fla. 338, 74 So. 408, 409, which was a suit in ejectment, plaintiff introduced a tax deed at the trial, relying on its prima facie validity, and rested, whereupon the defendant produced evidence tending to show that the tax deed was void because several of the statutory…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence