Hadsock v. Gracy

Supreme Court of Florida

Hadsock v. Gracy

136 So. 646, 102 Fla. 722

DecidedAugust 5, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 136 So. 646 (Hadsock v. Gracy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hadsock v. Gracy, 136 So. 646, 102 Fla. 722 (Fla. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

— 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 *723 a 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

— 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 *723 a 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 So. 646, 102 Fla. 722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hadsock-v-gracy-fla-1931.