FRANCES B. GOULDEN
v.
MANREKA CORPORATION
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 upheld the dismissal of a bill to cancel a tax deed, holding that a tax deed executed in 1933 substantially complied with statutory form requirements even though it omitted the word 'subsequent' when referring to outstanding tax certificates.
The tax deed substantially complies with statutory form requirements. The omission of 'subsequent' is not fatal because the deed's recitation that applicant purchased 'all other outstanding tax certificates' is actually broader than the statutory requirement and encompasses both prior and subsequent certificates.
“Does the language used in the deed substantially comply with the form prescribed by statute? We hold that it does.”
The court's central holding regarding substantial compliance with statutory form requirements for tax deeds.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA tax deed was executed and dated October 30, 1933. The deed recited that the applicant had purchased 'all other outstanding tax certificates covering…
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 Cancellation Of Tax Deed cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final decree dismissing bill of complaint to cancel a tax deed upon the ground that the same is void.
The only question presented for our consideration is: “Is a tax deed executed and dated on October 30, 1933, in form prescribed bj7 law prior to passage of Chapter 14572, Acts of 1929, and omitting the word 'subsequent’ prescribed by the 1929 Act void on its face ?”
The 1929 Act prescribed (See Section 779, R. G. S., 1003 Cumulative Supplement, 1934, page 123) the substantial form of tax deed and prescribed that the deed should contain, amongst other things, substantially the following lanlanguage: “and wherea's said applicant has redeemed (or purchased and surrendered) all other outstanding subsequent tax certificates covering said land, and proper notice having been given as required by law of his application for issue of this deed, and no owner, claimant or other person entitled to redeem said land has appeared to redeem the same;”
The tax deed in this case, as shown by the record, contained the following language: “and whereas said applicant has purchased all other outstanding tax certificates covering said land, and proper notice having been given as' required by law of its application for the issue of this deed, and no owner, claimant, or other person entitled to redeem said land, has appeared to redeem the same;”
The question is, “Does the language used in the deed substantially comply with the form prescribed by statute?” We hold that it does.
The deed recites that the applicant has purchased all other outstanding tax certificates covering said land. This dec-r laration goes further than what is required by statute. The statute only requires that the deed recite that the applicant *250has purchased all other outstanding subsequent tax certificates. If it recites that the applicant has purchased all other outstanding tax certificates, then the recitation is paramount to one that the applicant has purchased all outstanding prior and subsequent tax certificates covering the land. So, the decree is without error and should be affirmed.
It is' so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (40 total)
-
New Amsterdam Cas. Co. & C. E. Yocam v. Util. Battery Mfg. Co., 122 Fla. 718 (Fla. 1935)…rom the jury’s consideration, the learned trial [*730] Judge was in error. In addition to the authorities above cited see 17 C. J. 785, 795; Hodge v. Fries & Co., 34 Fla. 63, 15 So. 682; 8 R. C. L. 648, 649; Orlando Orange Co. v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159, 161 So. 284. When the witnesses were called and sworn in this case, they were, by the court, placed “under the rule” with the exception of E. O. Kirkeby, president of the plaintiff corporation, C. E. Yocam, one of the defendants', and H. D. Wentworth, vice-pre…
-
ACE Elec. Supply Co. v. Terra Nova Elec., Inc., 288 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)…and the manner of their dealings thereunder. In construing such a contract the interpretation thereof by the parties as shown by their actions in relation thereto is accorded considerable weight. In Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159, 161 So. 284, 295 (1935), the Supreme Court said: “This court is committed to the doctrine that where the terms of a written contract are in any respect uncertain or doubtful and the parties thereto have by their conduct placed a construction upon the contract w…
-
Fla. Power Corp. v. City OF Tallahassee, 154 Fla. 638 (Fla. 1944)…n executed, so as to determine the intention of the parties, objects to be accomplished, obligations created, time of performance, duration, consideration, mutuality, and other essential features. See Orlando Orange Grove Co. v. Hales, 119 Fla. 159, 161 So. 284; Bennett v. Williams, 149 Fla. 4, 5 So. (2nd) 51; Knabb v. Reconstruction Finance Co., 144 Fla. 110, 197 So. 707. If clauses in a contract appear to be repugnant to each other, they must be given such an interpretation and construction as will reco…
Previewing 3 of 40 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence