OWEN BURNS, ET UX.,
v.
MINERVA CAMPBELL, A WIDOW
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 an order denying a motion to dismiss a tax lien foreclosure suit, finding the land description in the bill of complaint sufficient on its face.
Yes, the description of the land is sufficient on its face to withstand a motion to dismiss. Whether the land can be located by this description is a matter for trial.
“The appeal is from an order denying motion to dismiss bill of complaint in a suit filed to foreclose a lien of certain tax certificates.”
Establishes the procedural posture and subject matter of the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 4 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA bill of complaint was filed to foreclose a lien of tax certificates. The bill of complaint described the land as 'The unplatted portion South and ad…
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 Lien Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal is from an order denying motion to dismiss bill of complaint in a suit filed to foreclose a lien of certain tax certificates.
The only question presented by the appellant is whether or not the description of the land as contained in the bill of complaint is sufficient. That description is' as follows:
“The unplatted portion South and adjoining Lots 2, 4, Block IB, plat of Sarasota, Section 19, Township 36, South, Range 18 East.”
On its face the description is good. Whether or not the complainant will be able to show on trial the existence of any lands that could be located by this description is a matter to be considered when that point is reached.
There was no reversible error in denying motion to dismiss.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. 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
-
Verona Burns v. Minerva Campbell, 131 Fla. 630 (Fla. 1938)…sment [*632] on the same property was decreed in behalf of the City of Sarasota. Twelve different assignments based on the final decree are argued here for reversal. This case is here for the second time. See Burns, et ux., v. Campbell, 120 Fla. 60, 162 So. 155. It is contended that the land as described in the certificates, supra, is insufficient in law to support a decree and it is as follows: “Unplatted portion South and adjoining Lots 2 and 4, Block 1-B, Plat of Sai-asota, Section 19, Township 36 Sout…
-
Biggers v. Neil, 448 F.2d 91 (6th Cir. 1971)…those issues. See Chahoon v. Commonwealth, 62 Va. 822, 825 (1871), construing a statute; and see State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 So. 51 (1904); Ex parte White, 131 Fla. 83, 178 So. 876 (1938); Dean v. State, 173 Miss. 254, 309-310, 162 So. 155 (1935), interpreting the common law. The only federal criminal case besides Biggers and Carter, supra, which research has uncovered involving a judgment arrived at by an equally divided court, is United States v. Worrall, 2 U.S. (2 Dali.) 384, 1 L.…