W. B. IVEY, ET AL.,
v.
JOHN T. HUNTER
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 lower court order in a tax certificate foreclosure case, rejecting the appellant's challenge based on the repeal of the governing statute. The court held that the certificate holder acquired valid rights under the original statute and that the repealing act expressly protected pending foreclosure suits.
The court held that the repeal of the statute did not affect the certificate holder's right to prosecute the suit because the repealing statute expressly provided that nothing in it should affect any suit then pending for foreclosure of a tax sale certificate or tax deed. Additionally, the certificate holder acquired valid rights under the original statute as a holder in due course for value.
“It, therefore, appears that the complainant was the holder of the certificate in due course and for value before Chapter 14752, Acts of 1929, was repealed and that he acquired the certificates with all the rights incident thereto under that provision of the statutes.”
Establishes that the certificate holder acquired valid, protected rights under the original statute before repeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee purchased a tax certificate (No. 10645) issued on August 3, 1931, from the State of Florida Treasurer on February 6, 1935. The appellee a…
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 Statutory Repeal cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before us on motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellee failed to file a brief herein or serve a copy on opposing counsel.
It is contended by the appellant that under the provisions of Rule 20 as amended and adopted November 5, 1930, he is entitled to have an order now entered reversing the order appealed from. The appellant evidently has not carefully read the Rule. Paragraph H of the Rule provides,. “And where defendant in error or appellee fails to file his brief within the time and in accordance) with the foregoing rules the court may proceed to give judgment according to the right of the case, unless on motion for good cause shown further time for filing proper brief is allowed.”
We have examined the record in connection with motion made and find that the appeal is without merit. The sole contention here is that the suit was brought under the pro*138visions of Chapter 14752, Acts- of 1929, and that the same was pending when that-legislative Act was repealed.
The record shows that the suit was brought to foreclose the tax certificate issued under the tax sale of the 3rd day of August, 1931, and certificate therefor No. 10645 was issued to the Treasurer of the State of Florida; that the complainant purchased the same from the State of Florida on February 6, 1935. The bill shows that the complainant also purchased subsequent tax certificates and paid subsequent taxes on the land described in the certificate.
It, therefore, appears that the complainant was the holder of the certificate in due course and for value before Chapter 14752, Acts of 1929, was repealed and that he acquired the certificates with all the rights incident thereto under that provision of the statutes.
Aside from this, Chapter 17442, Acts of 1935, which repealed Chapter 14752, supra, provided in terms that nothing contained in the repealing statute should in any way affect any suit then pending for the foreclosure of a tax sale certificate or a tax deed.
Therefore, the repeal of the statute did riot in anywise affect the right of the certificate holder to prosecute his suit thereunder.
The Act under which the suit was brought has been held valid in Ridgeway v. Reese, 100 Fla. 1304, 131 Sou. 136; Tax Security Corporation v. Borland, 103 Fla. 63, 137 Sou. 151; First Trust & Savings Bank v. West Lake Investment Co., 105 Fla. 590, 141 Sou. 894; Palbicke v. Takami, 112 Fla. 629, 151 Sou. 287; Campbell v. Pine Holding Co., 119 Fla. 763, 161 Sou. 726.
For the reasons stated, the order appealed from should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
*139Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Davis, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Glenn v. Leland, 129 Fla. 429 (Fla. 1937)…ain sections of Chapter 14572 were repealed by Chapter 17442, Acts of 1935. This repeal, however, did not deprive .the court of chancery of jurisdiction to adjudicate tax liens. This case is to be distinguished from that of Ivey, et ux., v. Hunter, 126 Fla. 137 and 126 Fla. 227 (170 Sou. 619 and 170 Sou. 734. In that case tax certificates had been purchased by the individual prior to the repealing Act hereinabove referred to and as to those certificates acquired at that time the Legislature was held to be…1 / 2
-
Ivey v. State of Fla. ex rel. J. Tom Watson, 147 Fla. 635 (Fla. 1941)…16 L. R. A. 308, 30 Am. St. Rep. 95; Starks v. Sawyer, 56 Fla. 596, 47 So. 513; Clark-Ray-Johnson Co. v. Williford, 62 Fla. 453, 56 So. 938; Clark v. Cochran, 79 Fla. 788, 85 So. 250; Overstreet v. Gordon, 121 Fla. 180, 163 So. 477; Ivey v. Hunter, 126 Fla. 137, 170 So. 619; Leland v. Andrews, 129 Fla. 429, 176 So. 418; State ex rel. Seville Holding Co. v. Draughon, 127 Fla. 528, 173 So. 353, 111 A. L. R. 234; 22 C. J. S. Criminal Law Sec. 825, and other cases, and these authorities have been carefully exa…
Authorities Cited
- Tax Sec. Corp. v. Peggie Borland, 103 Fla. 63 (Fla. 1931)
- Townsend Burns Ridgeway v. Reese, 100 Fla. 1304 (Fla. 1930)
- Britt v. State, 100 Fla. 1387 (Fla. 1930)
- First Tr. & Sav. Bank v. W. Lake Inv. Co., 105 Fla. 590 (Fla. 1932)
- Palbicke v. Takami, 112 Fla. 629 (Fla. 1933)
- Campbell v. Pine Holding Co., 119 Fla. 793 (Fla. 1935)