J. D. ANDERSON, ET UX.,
v.
NORTHERN INVESTMENT CORP.
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 decree foreclosing two tax sale certificates on real property in Pensacola. The appellants challenged the foreclosure on the ground that the property descriptions in the tax certificates were too indefinite to constitute valid legal descriptions for tax liens.
The property descriptions in the tax sale certificates are legally sufficient to support the tax liens and foreclosure. The law on this question has been settled by prior Florida Supreme Court decisions establishing that such descriptions are adequate.
“It is contended by the appellants that the description contained in the tax sale certificate is so indefinite and uncertain as to constitute no legal description which could be used as a basis for a tax lien.”
States the appellants' primary argument on appeal that the property descriptions were too vague to support valid tax liens.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo tax sale certificates were issued for unpaid taxes: Certificate No. 1394 described land as 'Lots 7 to 11, Blk. 78, S 28, T S 2, R. W. 30' (later c…
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.
In this case the appeal is from a final decree foreclosing two certain tax sale certificates'.
In one of the certificates the land was described as “Lots 5-6, Block 125, New City,” and in the other certificate the land was described as “Lots 7 to 11, Block 78, S. 28, T. S 2 R W 30.”
It was alleged in the second amended bill of complaint that certificate No. 1394 in which the lands were described as' follows, “Lots 7 to 11, Blk. 78, S 28, T S 2, R. W. 30,” was issued pursuant to a tax sale for the unpaid taxes lawfully assessed against Lots 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 in Blk. 78 of the West King tract in the City of Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida, being a subdivision of Section 28, T 2 S R 30 W. And it is further alleged that certificate No. 1192 in which the lands were described as “lots 5 6, Blk. 125, New City,” was issued pursuant to sale for the non payment of taxes lawfully assessed against lots 5 and 6 in Block 125 *895of the New City tract in the City of Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida.
It is contended by the appellants that the description contained in the tax sale certificate is so indefinite and uncertain as to constitute no legal description which could be used as a basis for a tax lien.
The law applicable to cases' involving questions such as those presented here has been definitely settled contrary to appellant’s contention in the opinions and judgments in the cases of Trust Co. of Fla., et al., v. City of Tampa, 103 Fla. 628, 138 Sou. 73; Inter City Security Co., et al., v. Barber, 106 Fla. 671, 143 Sou. 791, and Palbricke v. Takami, 112 Fla. 629, 151 Sou. 287.
On authority of these cases, and authorities there cited, the decree should be affirmed.
It is So ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell, Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crawford v. Rehwinkel, 121 Fla. 449 (Fla. 1935)…identifies the land that it will thereby be protected from reassessments for the same tax and that the court may decree a title upon specific land should the assessment as alleged be duly admitted or proved. See: Anderson v. Northern Investment Co., 120 Fla. 894, 163 Sou. Rep. 134. The bill of complaint does not allege facts showing the assessment on the land was made according to one of the methods provided by the statute. The order denying the [*457] motion to dismiss the bills is reversed and the cause…
-
Hillsborough Cnty. v. Hwy. Eng'g & Constr. Co., Inc., 94 F.2d 419 (5th Cir. 1938)…ok 10, page 69, rendered the inadvertent use of “29” for “28” immaterial and harmless, and made the assessment sufficiently definite and certain to constitute a legal description and basis for the certificates. Anderson v. Northern Inv. Corporation, 120 Fla. 894, 163 So. 134; Inter-City Sec. Co. v. Barbee, 106 Fla. 671, 143 So. 791; Trust Co. of Florida v. Tampa, 103 Fla. 628, 138 So. 73. In addition to the plat itself, which on its face inexorably identified the land to be assessed as in section 28, appel…
Authorities Cited
- Tr. Co. of Fla. v. City of Tampa, 103 Fla. 628 (Fla. 1931)
- Inter-City Sec. Co. v. Barbee, 106 Fla. 671 (Fla. 1932)
- Palbicke v. Takami, 112 Fla. 629 (Fla. 1933)