Southern Pine Co. of Georgia v. Murphy Investment Co.

171 So. 325, 126 Fla. 531, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 1645
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedDecember 15, 1936
StatusPublished

This text of 171 So. 325 (Southern Pine Co. of Georgia v. Murphy Investment Co.) 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
Southern Pine Co. of Georgia v. Murphy Investment Co., 171 So. 325, 126 Fla. 531, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 1645 (Fla. 1936).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

These two appeals involve tax certificate foreclosures and have been consolidated for hearing and *532 determination by the Supreme Court as one case. The appellant, Southern Pine Company of Georgia, as mortgagee of .a large part of the lands covered by the tax certificates in suit, was named as a party defendant in the proceedings. The plaintiff below sued as assignees and holders of the tax certificates in controversy. The decrees and orders appealed from awarded the appellee, Murphy Investment-Company, judgments for delinquent taxes in the amounts of $71,075.10 in one case and $124,815.66 in the other, and decreed foreclosure of the involved lands to satisfy plaintiff’s claim for recovery of said amounts. The appeals present the question of the correctness of the foreclosure decrees and the subsequent sales by the master and orders confirming same.

The record is voluminous, but it is clear that no question is raised by appellant as to the liability of the lands to the tax assessments for which the certificates were issued originally to the State of Florida as purchaser at the tax sale thereof. Nor is it in any respect contended the taxes subject to be foreclosed are not due, or that they have been heretofore discharged or paid. All the defenses interposed are purely technical and procedural and go principally to the right of the plaintiff below to maintain the suit as assignee and holder of the certificates sued upon. Chapter 14572, Acts 1929, was applicable to the tax certificates involved and substantial compliance was observed as to all of its provisions in connection with the institution and conduct of the proceedings.

Other defenses interposed are overruled on the authority of the following previous decisions of this Court: Vilsack v. Seville Holding Co., 126 Fla. 474, 171 Sou. Rep. 323; The Lyon Co. v. Phoenix Tax Title Corp., 126 Fla. 243, 170 Sou. Rep. 746; Allison Realty Co. v. Graves Inv. Co., *533 115 Fla. 48, 155 Sou. Rep. 745; Capital Finance Corp. v. Giles, 111 Fla. 527, 149 Sou. Rep. 585; Coral Gables Properties v. Stolper, 115 Fla. 231, 155 Sou. Rep. 231, 155 Sou. Rep. 799; City of Bradenton v. Lee, 120 Fla. 100, 162 Sou. Rep. 139; City of Sanford v. Dial, 104 Fla. 1, 142 Sou. Rep. 233; Green Cove Farms, Inc., v. Ivey, 119 Fla. 561, 161 Sou. Rep. 56; Gibson v. General Farmers’ Trust Co., 116 Fla. 295, 156 Sou. Rep. 714; Hackney v. McKinney, 113 Fla. 176, 151 Sou. Rep. 524; Kennedy v. Hancock, 108 Fla. 601, 146 Sou. Rep. 667; Lee v. Booker & Co., Inc., 108 Fla. 534, 146 Sou. Rep. 546; Milton v. City of Marianna, 107 Fla. 251, 144 Sou. Rep. 400; Patterson v. Grenshaw, 110 Fla. 310, 148 Sou. Rep. 543; Ranger Realty Co. v. Hefty, 112 Fla. 654, 152 Sou. Rep. 439; Ranger Realty Co. v. Miller, 102 Fla. 378, 136 Sou. Rep. 546; Ridgeway v. Reese, 100 Fla. 1304, 131 Sou. Rep. 136; Ridgeway v. Peacock, 100 Fla. 1297, 131 Sou. Rep. 140; Stubbs v. Florida State Finance Co., 118 Fla. 450, 159 Sou. Rep. 527; Securities Land & Inv. Co. v. Ranger Realty Co., 115 Fla. 640, 156 Sou. Rep. 23; Saussy v. Northern Inv. Co., 122 Fla. 265, 165 Sou. Rep. 268; Tax Securities Corp. v. Manatee Corp., 115 Fla. 655, 155 Sou. Rep. 742; West Virginia Hotel Corp. v. Foster Co., 101 Fla. 1147, 132 Sou. Rep. 842; Washbish v. Elvines, 114 Fla. 575, 154 Sou. 315; Wade v. City of Jacksonville, 113 Fla. 718, 152 Sou. Rep. 197.

Where foreclosure suit under Chapter 14572, Acts of 1929, is brought by an assignee of tax certificates sold at tax sale to the State, and by the State subsequently transferred and signed over by the Clerk of the Circuit Court to the plaintiff holder of the tax certificates being sued upon, and it affirmatively appears that the tax certificates sued on were in fact purchased from the State, and bear an en *534 dorsement to that effect, executed by the Clerk of the Circuit Court as the State’s representative in the transaction purporting to assign same to the plaintiff holder, it is no ground of complaint or defense to a delinquent taxpayer being sued as defendant in such foreclosure for him to attempt to set up that the Clerk of the Circuit Court may have improperly or illegally transferred the .State certificates, so long as the complaint exhibits as a basis for the foreclosure suit the assigned certificates themselves bearing an endorsement thereon to the complainant or his predecessor and showing that the same have for a valuable consideration been sold by the State to the purchaser or his predecessor in title to same. See Green Cove Farms, Inc., v. Ivey, 119 Fla. 561, 161 Sou. Rep. 56.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur. Brown, J., dissents.

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

Related

Kennedy v. Hancock
146 So. 667 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1933)
Ranger Realty Co. v. Miller
136 So. 546 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)
Stubbs v. Florida State Finance Co.
159 So. 527 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1935)
Capital Finance Corp. v. Giles
149 So. 585 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1933)
Wade, Et Vir. v. City of Jacksonville
152 So. 197 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1934)
Washbish, Et Vir. v. Elvins, Et Vir.
154 So. 315 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1934)
Townsend Burns Ridgeway v. Peacock
131 So. 140 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
Gibson v. Central Farmers' Trust Co.
156 So. 714 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1934)
Townsend Burns Ridgeway v. Reese
131 So. 136 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
Vilsack v. Seville Holding Co.
171 So. 323 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
Patterson v. Crenshaw
148 So. 543 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1933)
Saussy v. Northern Investment Corp.
165 So. 268 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1935)
City of Bradenton v. Lee
162 So. 139 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1935)
Milton, Jr. v. City of Marianna
144 So. 400 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1932)
Tax Securities Corp. v. Manatee Co.
155 So. 742 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1934)
Ranger Realty Co. v. Hefty
152 So. 439 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1933)
Lockwood v. L. & L. Freight Lines, Inc.
171 So. 236 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
Allison Realty Co. v. Graves Investment Co.
155 So. 745 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1934)
Green Cove Farms, Inc. v. Ivey
161 So. 56 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1934)
The Lyon Co. v. Phoenix Tax Title Corp.
170 So. 746 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
171 So. 325, 126 Fla. 531, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 1645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-pine-co-of-georgia-v-murphy-investment-co-fla-1936.