R. J. HADSOCK, APPELLANT,
v.
MARGARET S. GRACY, GLADYS HARN AND SAM P. HARN, HER HUSBAND, MAURINE GRACY, AND L. C. GRACY, JR., APPELLEES
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's decision to cancel a tax deed, remove a cloud from title, and award damages. The court found the tax deed void because the land was improperly assessed and the purchaser of the tax deed had a duty to pay the taxes himself.
Yes, the tax deed was void and properly cancelled. The court found ample proof to support the allegations that the assessment was improper and that the purchaser had a duty to pay the taxes.
“The only question presented here is whether or not the tax deed should have been cancelled.”
Identifies the sole issue on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellees (complainants below) sued to cancel a tax deed issued in 1926, based on a 1924 tax sale certificate for 1923 taxes. They alleged the dee…
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 Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
— This was a suit to cancel a tax deed, to remove cloud from title, to restrain the removal of timber from lands described in the tax deed and to award damages for timber removed prior to the institution of suit. The appellees, who were complainants below, given *723a decree on all three points. Appellant, who was defendant below, appealed.
The only question presented here is whether or not the tax deed should have been cancelled.
The bill of complaint, in substance, alleges that the tax deed was issued in 1926, that it was predicated on tax sale certificate, number 415, sale of 1924; for taxes' of 1923 of Alachua County and that said deed was void for the following reasons: (1) At the time of the assessment, complainants were the owners of the lands, yet they were not assessed in the name of the owner nor as “unknown”, (2) The lands in question were assessed with other lands in the name of R. J. Hadsock and^ (3) The lands in question being assessed to R. J. Hadsock, it was his duty to pay the taxes thereon, yet he declined to do this but let them sell to the state for non-payment of taxes and then purchased the certificate on which he secured the tax deed.
The proof was ample to support these allegations and being supported, the decree of the Chancellor was without error. It is accordingly affirmed.
Affirmed.
■Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.
Buford, C.J., and Brown, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Ellis, J., not participating.