ABROGAST LAND COMPANY
v.
KENNETH N. PHILCOX, MRS. A. L. HANNA, ET AL.
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 vacating a restraining order that had been issued without notice. The original restraining order was intended to prevent the issuance of a tax deed, but it failed to meet statutory requirements for challenging tax certificates.
No, the trial court did not err. The order vacating the restraining order is affirmed because the original restraining order was granted in contravention of statutory requirements for challenging tax certificates and the Chancery Practice Act regarding notice.
“The granting of the restraining order without notice was in contravention of Section 73 of 1931 Chancery Practice Act.”
Establishes a procedural defect in the original restraining order.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAbrogast Land Company filed a bill of complaint challenging the validity of tax certificates and obtained a restraining order without notice to preven…
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 Deed Issuance cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal here is from an order vacating a restraining order which had been entered without notice restraining the issuing of a tax deed on a bill of complaint challenging the validity of tax certificates in which it was *540not alleged that “the property was not subject to taxation, or that the taxes had been paid previous to sale, or that the property had been redeemed prior to the execution and delivery of deed based upon certificate issued for non-payment of taxes,” as required by Chapter 14572, Acts of Extra Session, 1929.
The granting of the restraining order without notice was in contravention of Section 73 of 1931 Chancery Practice Act.
The order appealed from must be affirmed because of the non-compliance with provisions of the legislative Acts, supra, and on authority of the opinion and judgment of this Court in the cases of Ranger Realty Co. v. Hefty, 112 Fla. 654, 152 Sou. 439; Lee v. Rooker & Co. Inc., 108 Fla. 534, 146 Sou. 546, and DeVane, et al., v. Leatherman, 113 Fla. 216, 151 Sou. 530.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, J., concur.
Davis, C. J., and Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Orefice v. Albert, 237 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1970)…ton Seed Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 86 So. 629, 16 A.L.R. 255; Herr v. Butler, 101 Fla. 1125, 132 So. 815; Engleman v. Traeger, 102 Fla. 756, 136 So. 527; Greene v. Miller, 102 Fla. 767, 136 So. 532; City Grocery Co. v. Cothron, 117 Fla. 322, 157 So. 891.’ ” (10 So. 2d 720) (Boggs et al. v. Butler, 129 Fla. 324, 176 So. 174, 176) Also, see Anderson v. Southern Cotton Oil Co., supra. In Weber v. Porco, 100 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1958), this Court clarified the nature of the respondeat superior relation i…
-
Mrs. Eunice E. Orr v. Avon Fla. Citrus Corp., 130 Fla. 306 (Fla. 1937)…ite party. If the evidence is conflicting and will admit of more than one interpretation, if it consists of mysterious or unexplained circumstances, these should be resolved by a jury rather than the court. City Grocery Co. v. Cothron, 117 Fla. 322, 157 So. 891; Starks v. Sawyer, 56 Fla. 596, 47 So. 513; Commercial Credit Co. v. Parker, 101 Fla. 928, 132 So. 640; Harbeson Lumber Co. v. Cosson, 116 Fla. 495, 106 So. 482. The question of negligence is always a jury question to be answered from the facts and…
-
Boggs v. Butler, 129 Fla. 324 (Fla. 1937)…ts. Southern Cotton Seed Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 86 So. 629; Herr v. Butler, 101 Fla. 1125, 132 So. 815; Engleman v. Traeger, 102 Fla. 756, 136 So. 527; Green v. Miller, 102 Fla. 767, 136 So. 532; City Grocery Co. v. Cothron, 117 Fla. 322, 157 So. 891. The questions raised with reference to charges given and refused have been considered but we find no reversible error. The judgment below is accordingly affirmed. Affirmed. Ellis, C. J., and Buford, J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ranger Realty Co. v. Caspar Hefty, 112 Fla. 654 (Fla. 1933)
- Lee v. Booker & Co., Inc., 108 Fla. 534 (Fla. 1933)
- Devane v. Leatherman, 113 Fla. 216 (Fla. 1933)