EDMOND HILL, APPELLANT,
v.
JACOB VANDERPOOL, RESPONDENT
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.
In this 1875 ejectment action, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment for the plaintiff-claimant, holding that a tax sale certificate signed by only two of three federal direct tax commissioners was admissible in evidence. The court followed the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Cooley v. O'Connor that a majority of commissioners could execute their authority.
A certificate signed by only two of three federal direct tax commissioners is admissible in evidence and constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity of the sale and the purchaser's title. The trial court erred in excluding the certificate based solely on the lack of three signatures.
“The Supreme Court of the United States, in Cooley vs. O'Connor, 12 Wallace, 391, held that a certificate signed by only two of the direct tax commissioners appointed under the act of Congress of June 7, 1862, that land charged with the tax had been sold, is admissible in evidence in an action brought to try the title to the land.”
Establishes the controlling precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court that the certificate was admissible despite having only two signatures.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was in possession of land in St. John's County, Florida. The plaintiff claimed title through mesne conveyances and his grantors' prior p…
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 Sales Tax cases and more on FLexlaw
delivered the opinion of the court.
This was an action of ejectment to' recover certain lands in St. John’s county, of which the defendant (appellant) was in possession, and of which plaintiff claimed title by virtue of certain mesne conveyances and former possession by his grantors and their ancestors.
The defendant in possession claims by his answer that the lands were sold by the United States Direct Tax Commissioners for the unpaid direct tax due the United States in December, 1863, to James W. Allen, and that Allen conveyed the same to defendant, who was in possession under said tax sale and conveyance prior to the making of the deed under which the plaintiff claims.
In the trial the plaintiff proved his title to the land by several conveyances.
*129The defendant then offered in evidence a certificate of sale by the United States Tax Commissioners for Florida of the premises in question, (the certificate being signed by two only of the three commissioners,) to James W. Allen. The court refused to admit the certificate in evidence on the. ground that it was signed by two commissioners only, and that it was invalid without the signatures of three commissioners.
The jury then, under the charge of the court, rendered a verdict for the plaintiff, and judgment was rendered accordingly, and the defendant appealed.
The Supreme Court of'the United States, in Cooley vs. O’Connor, 12 Wallace, 391, held that a certificate signed by only two of the direct tax commissioners appointed under the act of Congress of June 7, 1862, that land charged with the tax had been sold, is admissible in evidence in an action brought to try the title to the- land. The commissioners were created a hoard to perform a governmental function, and it is a familiar principle that an authority given to several for public purposes may be executed by a majority of their number.” “ -Had the certificate been admitted, it would, by force of the statute, have amounted to prima facie evidence, as well of the regularity and validity of the sale, as of the title of the purchasers.”
This settles the question raised in this case. The Supreme Court of the United States having given an interpretation of the act of Congress, we are bound to follow it.
The certificate should have been received in evidence, notwithstanding the' objection made, and the defendant permitted to show his title derived from the tax sale purchaser. It would then have cast .upon the plaintiff the burthen of impeaching the sale or showing that the property had been redeemed from the sale as provided by the act of Congress.
The verdict and the judgment are hereby reversed, with costs, and a trial de novo ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rutledge Gould v. Carr, 33 Fla. 523 (Fla. 1894)
-
State v. Lock Davidson and Ernest H. Every, 115 Fla. 772 (Fla. 1934)…ies by death before the drawing and conveyance of the prizes (city lots) to the fortunate ticket-holders, it was held in ejectment that the conveyance of a prize by four of the five (one. having died) was effectual and good.” In Hill v. Vanderpool, 15 Fla. 128, this' Court held (following Cooley v. O’Connor, supra) that a certificate signed by only two.of the direct-tax commissioners appointed under Act of Congress of June 7, 1862, was admissible in evidence upon the theory that the commissioners were cre…