OSCAR BASS (OTHERWISE KNOWN AS RULL BASS), APPELLANT,
v.
R. H. ALDERMAN, AS TAX COLLECTOR FOR OKEECHOBEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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 second appeal, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a tax assessment decree, finding that the county board improperly increased the complainant's cattle count for taxation purposes from 2,500 to 5,000 head without sufficient evidentiary support. The court also struck an unauthorized attorney fee provision from the decree.
The court held that the evidence did not support the assessment of 5,000 head of cattle, as the record clearly showed Bass owned fewer than 5,000 head, approximately the 2,500 he had reported. The court also held that there was no legal authority for the $500 attorney fee provision in the decree.
“By his bill complainant expresses his readiness to pay his just proportion of the taxes of said county and offers to pay such amount as may be found to be legally and justly due and legally assessable against him on said property”
Establishes that Bass acknowledged his obligation to pay taxes but challenged only the amount assessed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceComplainant Oscar Bass owned cattle in Okeechobee County, Florida and reported 2,500 head for tax assessment purposes. The county board of commissione…
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 Assessment cases and more on FLexlaw
West, J.
This case is now before this court for the second time (Bass v. Alderman, 80 Fla. 345, 86 South. Rep. 244). The substance of the allegations of the bill of complaint are set out in the opinion filed when the case was here on the former appeal. It was then held that the question involved in the controversy was a proper subject of equity jurisdiction and the order overruling a demurrer to the bill was reversed. The case was remanded and defendant answered. Testimony was taken and on final hearing a decree was entered against complainant ordering and decreeing that he pay to defendant as tax collector the amount of the tax assessed against him with interest, together with an attorney fee to defendant’s counsel and costs.
By his bill complainant expresses his readiness to pay his just proportion of the taxes of said county and offers to pay such amount as may be found to be legally and justly due and legally assessable against him on said property and prays that upon payment of such amount defendant may be perpetually enjoined from levying upon and selling any of complainant’s property for the purpose of enforcing payment of any amount in excess of the amount found to be due by him.
The question presented for this court’s consideration is a question of fact. In making his return for the purpose of taxation complainant gave the' number of cattle owned by him in said county as 2,500 head. The board of county commissioners of the county increased the number to 5,000 head. After a careful consideration of the evidence we have reached the conclusion that it is not sufficient to uphold the decree sustaining the assessment for the reason that it clearly appears that at the time of the assessment the number of cattle owned by complainant in said county was less than 5,000 head and little if any, in excess of 2,500, the number returned by him. Since the decisive question is one of fact only a recapitulation of the evidence would be of no benefit.
The final decree contains a provision that complainant shall pay to the attorney for defendant a fee of $500 There is no authority in the law for this provision of the decree and to require its payment by complainant was-error. Tbe decree will be reversed with directions to enter a decree against complainant in favor of defendant for the tax legally assessable against him upon the number of cattle returned and shown by the evidence to have been owned by him in the county at the time of said assessment, namely, 2,500 head, eliminating the, feature of the decree requiring complainant to pay an attorney fee to the attorney of defendant, the cost of the suit to be taxed against defendant.
Reversed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hoffman v. Barlly, 97 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)…of some agreement or stipulation specially authorizing the allowance thereof, and it has been held that the rule applies equally in Courts of Law and in Courts of Equity.’ ” See, also, Gregory v. Woodbery, 53 Fla. 566, 43 So. 504; Bass v. Alderman, 82 Fla. 490, 90 So. 378; State ex rel. Royal Ins. Co. v. Barrs, 87 Fla. 168, 99 So. 668; Webb v. Scott, 129 Fla. Ill, 176 So. 442; Dorner v. Red Top Cab & Baggage Co., 160 Fla. 882, 37 So. 2d 160; and Phoenix Indemnity Co. v. Union Finance Co., Fla.1951, 54 So.…
-
Abram Wolkowsky v. Gutman Kirchick, 85 Fla. 210 (Fla. 1923)…efendants has not been sustained. The evidence offered is not of the character required in this class of cases. Where the decree of the chancellor is not supported by the evidence it will [*212] be reversed by this court on appeal. Bass v. Alderman, 82 Fla. 490, 90 South. Rep. 378; Florida National Bank v. Sherouse, 80 Fla. 405, 86 South. Rep. 279; Schmitt v. Bethea, 78 Fla. 304, 82 South. Rep. 817; Howard v. Sheffield, 73 Fla. 358, 74 South. Rep. 488. Reversed. Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis and Br…
-
Kessler v. Pa. Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 531 F.2d 248 (5th Cir. 1976)…only when they are authorized by statute or provided for by agreement. Here there was no such statute or basis for awarding attorneys’ fees. Phoenix Indemnity Company v. Union Finance Company (1951, Fla.), 54 So. 2d 188. See Bass v. Alderman (1921), 82 Fla. 490, 90 So. 378. . See N.L.R.B. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 5 Cir., 1970, 430 F. 2d 966. . Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins. . Cf. Nardelli v. Stuyvesant Insurance Co. of New York, 5 Cir., 1958, 258 F. 2d 718, 1958 AMC 2404; Societa Anonima…
Authorities Cited
- Bass v. Alderman, 80 Fla. 345 (Fla. 1920)