Rome v. Branch

14 Fla. Supp. 171
CourtCircuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County
DecidedJanuary 7, 1959
DocketNo. 58 C 6276
StatusPublished

This text of 14 Fla. Supp. 171 (Rome v. Branch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rome v. Branch, 14 Fla. Supp. 171 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1959).

Opinion

ROBERT H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.

Opinion: The City of Miami was created by chapter 10847, Laws of 1925. Section 42 of that Act reads as follows—

The general law of the State of Florida upon the subject of taxation as it now exists shall apply to and govern in the assessment, levy and collection of taxes in the City of Miami and in the return and sale of property delinquent therefor; and shall also apply and govern in respect to the powers, duties and liabilities of persons and property touching and concerning such taxes, and shall have full force and effect in said city as far as the same may be applicable, except as herein otherwise provided.

The general law of Florida upon the subject of sales for delinquent taxes as it existed in 1925 was enacted by chapter 4822, Acts of 1895, section 52, and chapter 5596, Acts of 1907, section 55. It provided for the disposition of delinquent tax certificates as follows—

The land shall be struck off to the person who will pay the tax, costs and charges for the least portion of the land, and the portion thereof sold shall be taken from the southeast corner of such parcel and described in a square form as near as may be. (See Section 761, Revised General Statutes, 1920; Section 974, Compiled General Laws, 1927.)

[173]*173In 1929 the state statute was changed so as to read—

193.56 To whom, land struck off. The land shall he struck off to the person who will pay the tax, interest, costs and charges and will demand the lowest rate of interest for the first year, not in excess of the maximum rate allowed by law. Chapter 14572, Section 6, Laws, 1929; Chapter 20722, Section 15, Laws, 1941. Section 193.56, Florida Statutes.

However, by reason of the above quoted section of the city charter, this was not applicable to Miami. The charter provision continued in full force and effect.

The plaintiff in this case is the owner of lot 17, block 4, Bay Heights First Addition of Dade County. It is his home. He lives on it with his wife and family. His complaint alleges that he did not pay the City of Miami real property taxes on it for the year 1957, and tax certificate 1425 was issued and sold for $357 on June 2, 1958, to the defendants, R. K. Branch and P. L. Branch. The tax sale certificate (no. 1425) recites—

I, G. N. SHAW, Director of Finance for the City of Miami, County of Dade, in the State of Florida, do hereby certify that I did, at public auction, pursuant to notice given by law as required, on this, the second day of June, A. D., 1958, sell to B. K. OR P. L. BRANCH the land here described for the sum of THREE HUNDRED FIFTY-SEVEN dollars and NO cents, said sum being the amount due and unpaid for taxes, costs and charges of the described lands for the Year of Our Lord, One Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty-seven, that R. K. OR P. L. BRANCH or his assigns, will therefore be entitled to a deed of conveyance of such lands in accordance with law, unless the same shall be redeemed within two years by payment of said amount, with interest at the rate of twenty five per cent per annum for the first year and eight per cent per annum thereafter. Said lands are described as follows, to-wit:
DESCRIPTION OF LAND
BAY HEIGHTS FIRST ADDITION PLAT BOOK 53 PAGE 30
A one/googolplex of one/googolplex portion, taken as a square as near as may be, in the southeast corner of Lot 17 Block 4
in the City of Miami, County of Dade, State of Florida.

In recent years there seems to have developed a practice among buyers of tax sale certificates of the City of Miami to bid a “googolplex of a googolplex” of the property for which the tax sale certificate was issued. This is to take advantage of the provision of the law that “the land shall be struck off to the person who will pay the tax, costs and charges for the least portion of the land, etc.”

[174]*174The trouble with it is that the purchaser did not acquire the right to receive any substantial portion of the property. An impression seems to have been acquired by the “investors” who participated in this practice that the city’s lien for taxes on the whole of the property followed the tax sale. That is not the case at all. The city sold the property to satisfy its lien for taxes on the whole of the property. When it got the money from the tax sale certificate and gave the certificate to the purchaser, its lien was extinguished. Taxation, 84 C. J. S. 1201, section 596, note 35. The purchaser of the tax sale certificate acquired no lien on the property or any part of it. All he got was the right to a deed to the property covered by the certificate at the expiration of two years if the owner did not pay the taxes to him with interest and costs.

Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary gives the following definitions—

Googol — The figure 1 followed by 100 zeros; in other words, 10 to the 100th power.
Googolplex — The figure 1 followed by a googol of zeros; in other words, 10 to the 10th power to the 100th power.

The word was first used by Dr. Edward Kasner, an American mathematician. He wrote a book in 1940, entitled “Mathematics and the Imagination.” He says in his book that his 9-year-old nephew invented the name “googol” on being asked to think up a name for a big number, i.e., one with a hundred zeros after it. If the boy was 9 years old in 1940, he was born in 1931, which was after the passage of the Miami city charter in 1925 and much later than the adoption of the state statute in 1895. This indicates that neither the legislature of 1895 nor the legislature of 1925 could have had “googol” or “googolplex” in mind in adopting the statutes referred to. Dr. Kasner says, among other things—

Now here is the name of a very large number: “Googol.” Most people would say, “A googol is so large that you cannot name it or talk about it; it is so large that it is infinite.” Therefore, we shall talk about it, explain exactly what it is, and show that it belongs to the very same family as the number 1.
A googol is this number which one of the children in the kindergarten wrote on the blackboard:
1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000
The definition of a googol is: 1 followed by a hundred zeros. [Page 20]
Words of wisdom are spoken by children at least as often as by scientists. The name “googol” was invented by a child [Dr. Kasner’s nine-year-old nephew] who was asked to think up a name for a very big [175]*175number, namely, 1 with a hundred zeros after it. He was very certain that this number was not infinite, and therefore equally certain that it had to have a name. At the same time that he suggested “googol” he gave a name for a still larger number: “Googolplex.” A googolplex is much larger than a googol, but is still finite, as the inventor of the name' was quick to point out. It was first suggested that a googolplex should be 1, followed by writing zeros until you got tired.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 Fla. Supp. 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rome-v-branch-flacirct11mia-1959.