JAMES MACGIBBON, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
ROBERT H. HARRELL AND MRS. ROBERT H. HARRELL, AND STATE EX REL., ROBERT H. HARRELL AND MRS. ROBERT H. HARRELL, DEFENDANTS 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 affirmed a mandamus order requiring the Clerk of the Circuit Court to process Mrs. Harrell's application for a tax deed on a tax sale certificate purchased from the State. The court held that the clerk had a ministerial duty to proceed with the tax deed application under existing law, and that a validating statute did not alter the applicable procedures for State-held tax certificates.
The court affirmed the mandamus order, holding that the clerk had a clear ministerial duty under general law to receive the required payments, publish notice, and proceed with issuing a tax deed upon compliance with statutory requirements. The validating statute did not modify the procedures for tax certificates held by the State or extend the time for redemption after a deed application is made.
“the Act does not for the purposes of this case affect the general law as to the sale of tax certificates held by the State, and the issuance of deeds thereon by due course of law”
Establishes that the validating statute does not modify the applicable procedures for State-held tax certificates
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Harrell purchased tax sale certificate No. 208 from the State on July 17, 1925, for unpaid taxes for the year 1922. On September 28, 1925, she ap…
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.
Chapter 10532, Acts of 1925, approved May 22,1925, provides that "this Act shall take effect thirty days after it becomes a law” and by its terms provides "that each and every uncancelled and unredeemed tax sale certificate upon which no deed has yet been made, heretofore issued in pursuance of any sale for taxes * * * embracing lands in Escambia County, Florida, * * * whether held by the State or by individuals, and all State and county assessments of lands in said county for taxes for 1924 are hereby validated and confirmed,” &c., and that "any such tax sale certificate held by the State or its authorities may be redeemed or sold and assigned upon the same terms and for like amounts as is or may be provided by law for the redemption, sale and assignment of valid tax sale certificates; provided, no redemption shall be permitted after the expiration of six months from the time this Act becomes effective, except that certificates based upon sales made from nonpayment of taxes for the year 1923, may be redeemed at any time previous to the expiration of two years from the date of such sale.”
While under the principles announced in City of Orlando v. Giles, 51 Fla. 422, 40 South. Rep. 834, the provisions of the Act purporting to validate tax sale certificates as distinguished from tax assessments, may not be operative, if the Act be otherwise valid, yet the Act does not for the purposes of this case affect the general law as to the sale of tax certificates held by the State, and the issuance of deeds thereon by due course of law. If the local law be inoperative to cure illegal tax sales, the purchaser takes a deed cum onere. The land may be redeemed at any time before a deed is executed by making appropriate payments. Sec. 770, Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920. The local Act above quoted from does not extend the time for redemption when a tax certificate is bought and deed duly applied for; but it purports to terminate the right to redeem at all “after the expiration of six months from the time the Act becomes effective, ’ ’ except as to sales for taxes for 1923, which exception is not now material here.
Affirmed.
Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Brown, C. J., and Ellis and Strum, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The City of Orlando v. Nannie B. Giles and James L. Giles, 51 Fla. 422 (Fla. 1906)