MCALLISTER REALTY COMPANY
v.
T. J. CAMPBELL, AS TAX COLLECTOR, ET AL.; RICHARD MCALLISTER, JR., V. T. J. CAMPBELL, AS TAX COLLECTOR, 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.
Appellants sought to void tax assessments and tax sale certificates through bills in equity, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of their complaints, holding that the proper remedy for challenging tax assessments is mandamus, not equitable relief, and that courts of equity lack jurisdiction when adequate remedies exist at law.
The court affirmed dismissal of the bills, holding that appellants lack standing in equity to challenge tax assessments because a complete and adequate remedy at law exists through mandamus, and therefore courts of equity have no jurisdiction to entertain such claims.
“plaintiff's remedy is not by a bill in chancery seeking to void the entire tax roll, or any part of it, but to apply for a writ of mandamus to compel the tax officials to do their duty”
Establishes the core holding that mandamus, not equity, is the proper remedy for challenging tax assessments
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants McAllister Realty Company and Richard McAllister, Jr. filed bills in May 1930 challenging tax assessments on their respective parcels of re…
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 Sale Certificates cases and more on FLexlaw
These are companion cases in which appellants, being complainants in the court below, sought respectively by bills filed May 31, 1930, to have the tax assessments levied against their respective parcels of real estate declared void on several grounds.
On July 3, 1930, the complainants were amended to seek injunction of tax sale of the involved property. Injunction was denied. In the McAllister Realty Company case *448amended and supplemental bill was filed March 22, 1932, and in the Richard McAllister case supplemental bill was filed March 17, 1932. The supplemental bills sought to have tax sale certificates issued on the sale for non-payment of taxes held void and cancelled as clouds on title.
. On final hearing, after the taking of much testimony, final decrees dismissing the bills of complaint were entered in which it was decreed and the Chancellor held and adjudged.
“Plaintiff relied largely upon the case of West Virginia Hotel Corporation v. Foster, 132 So. 842. It is my opinion, however, that the instant case is governed by the holdings in the cases of Hackney v. McKinney, 151 So. 524, and Draughon v. Heitman, 168 So. 838. The cited cases quote with approval from the case of Liggett Co. v. Lee, 288 U. S. 517, 53 S. Ct. 481, 77 L. Ed. 929, which holds that plaintiff’s remedy is not by a bill in chancery seeking to void the entire tax roll, or any part of it, but to apply for a writ of mandamus to compel the tax officials to do their duty. There being a complete and adequate remedy at law, plaintiff has no standing in a court of equity. Therefore,
“It Is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the bills of complaint be and the same are hereby dismissed, and the lis pendens heretofore filed and entered in each cause be and the same are hereby canceled and held for nought.”
No useful purpose may be served by repeating here what we have said in the opinions cited and followed by the Chancellor.
The records disclose no reversible error and the decrees appealed from are affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
*449Terrell, C. J., Whitfield, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Thomas, J., disqualified.
Justice Brown not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marx v. Hoke Welch, 178 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…131 So. 333; Rio Vista Hotel & Improvement Co. v. Belle Mead Development Corp., 132 Fla. 88, 182 So. 417; State ex rel. Gibbs v. Circuit Court of Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Dade County, 140 Fla. 378, 191 So. 699; McAllister Realty Co. v. Campbell, 143 Fla. 447, 196 So. 857; Odham v. Foremost Dairies, Inc., Fla.1961, 128 So. 2d 586; Dade County Land Development Corp. v. Dade County, Fla.App.1963, 157 So. 2d 142; § 196.01, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. The order here under review is hereby affirmed. • Affirmed.…
-
Dade Cnty. v. McARTHUR Jersey Farm Dairy, Inc., 214 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…relation to claimed overvaluation in assessment of tangible personal property, the taxpayer was not entitled to seek relief therefor by suit in equity under § 196.01 Fla.Stat., F. S.A., and we hold, on authority of McAllister Realty Co. v. Campbell, 143 Fla. 447, 196 So. 857, that the defendants’ motion to dismiss should have been granted as to Count I. Affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.…
Authorities Cited
- W. Va. Hotel Corp. v. W. C. Foster Co., 132 So. 842 (Fla. 1931)
- Louis K. Liggett Co. v. LEE, 288 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1933)
- Hackney v. McKenny, 113 Fla. 176 (Fla. 1933)
- Draughon v. Florida Heitman, 124 Fla. 24 (Fla. 1936)