FRANK M. TYLER
v.
ORRIS NOBLES
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.
A retired county tax collector sought commissions on tax certificates he issued while in office but which were redeemed after his retirement. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the lower court's dismissal, holding that the tax collector was entitled to commissions under controlling precedent.
A retired county tax collector is entitled to commissions on tax certificates issued by him to the State while in office, even if those certificates were redeemed after his retirement.
“The sole question involved in this case is whether or not a county tax collector who has retired from office without receiving the maximum compensation allowed him under Section 757, R. G. S. of 1920, Section 970, C. G. L. of 1927, as amended by Chapter 15798, Acts of 1931, Laws of Florida, is entitled to commissions on tax certificates issued by him to the State while in office but which were redeemed by his successor after he retired from office.”
Statement of the precise legal issue before the Court
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrank M. Tyler, a county tax collector, retired from office without receiving the maximum compensation allowed under Florida statute. While he was in …
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 Law Of The Case Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
The sole question involved in this case is whether or not a county1 tax collector who has retired from office without receiving the maximum compensation allowed him under Section 757, R. G. S. of 1920, Section 970, C. G. L. of 1927, as amended by Chapter 15798, Acts of 1931, Laws of Florida, is entitled to commissions on tax certificates issued by him to the State while in office but which were redeemed by his successor after he retired from office.
The court below, by sustaining a demurrer to the declaration, answered this question in the negative. Final judgment was entered in favor of the defendant and this writ of error is from the final judgment.
The question raised here was conclusively settled by this Court in Tyler v. Thomas, et al., 114 Fla. 368, 153 Sou. *329848. We do not see that we can add to what we said in that case, so the judgment below is reversed on authority of Tyler v. Thomas, et al., 114 Fla. 368, 153 Sou. 848. See also Lee v. Smith, et al., 111 Fla. 91, 149 So. 67, and Gay v. McKenny, et al., decided by this Court June 23, 1934.
Reversed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Order.
This cause came on to be further heard on the Motion to modify the judgment and it appearing to> the Court that the law of the case was definitely settled in the decisions cited in our opinion filed November 30, 1934, that there must be an end to litigation sometime, and that the plaintiff in error is entitled to' a judgment in his favor.
It is, therefore, ordered, adjudicated, and decreed that the Motion to modify the judgment entered November 30, 1934, be, and the same is granted in that the cause is reversed with directions to the court below to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff in error, no interest to be allowed on said judgment.
It is so ordered.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Order on Motion to Modify Judgment.
This cause came on to be further heard on the Motion to modify the judgment and it appearing to the Court that the law of the case was definitely settled'in the decisions cited in our opinion filed November 30, 1934, that there must be an end to litigation sometime, and that the plaintiff in error is entitled-to a judgment in his favor.
*330It is, therefore, ordered, adjudicated, and decreed that the Motion to modify the judgment entered November 30, 1934, be, and the same is granted in that the cause is reversed with directions to the court below to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff in error, no interest to be allowed on said judgment.
It is so ordered.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. Honorable David Sholtz, 123 Fla. 110 (Fla. 1936)…decessor, Tyler, and was subject to judgment for that sum in Tyler’s behalf in the suit brought against him to enforce such payment. See: Lee v. Smith, 111 Fla. 91, 149 Sou. Rep. 67; Tyler v. Thomas, 114 Fla. 368, 153 Sou. Rep. 848; Tyler v. Nobles, 117 Fla. 328, 161 Sou. Rep. 283. The law is clear that Orris Nobles, as Tyler’s successor in office, received the commissions in question from the Clerk , of the Circuit Court by virtue and under color of his office as Tax Collector of St. Lucie County. It is a…
-
State v. Caruthers, 131 Fla. 840 (Fla. 1938)…n all amounts received for certificates redeemed in the manner stated. He relies on Lee v. Smith, [*842] 111 Fla. 91, 149 So. 67, reaffirmed in Tyler v. Thomas, 114 Fla. 368, 153 So. 848; Gay v. State, 115 Fla. 584, 155 So. 845; and Tyler v. Nobles, 117 Fla. 328, 117 So. 891, to support his contention. Lee v. Smith, was brought by tax collectors in some of the smaller counties to recover fees under facts and circumstances very similar to what we have in this case. We held that they were entitled to recover…
-
Lawrence Rogers (Intervenor below) v. Bandy, 132 Fla. 790 (Fla. 1938)…tor, in office at the time of the issuance of the certificates, was entitled to his commission upon redemption or sale. Tyler v. Thomas, 114 Fla. 368, 153 Sou. 848; Gay, Clerk, v. State, ex rel. McKenney, 115 Fla. 602, 155 Sou. 845; Tyler v. Nobles, 117 Fla. 328, 161 Sou. 283; National Surety Corporation v. Sholtz, 123 Fla. 110, 166 Sou. 213. “It would be necessary to substitute the word ‘unless’ for ‘until’ to put the construction on that Chapter that if it was not paid at the time of sale, he would not b…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tyler v. Elwyn Thomas, 114 Fla. 368 (Fla. 1934)
- Lee v. Smith, 111 Fla. 91 (Fla. 1933)