Stephens v. Futch

74 So. 805, 73 Fla. 708
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedMarch 24, 1917
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 74 So. 805 (Stephens v. Futch) 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
Stephens v. Futch, 74 So. 805, 73 Fla. 708 (Fla. 1917).

Opinion

Shackleford, J.

J. E. Futch instituted an action of ejectment against John K. Stephens and R. B. Roberts for the recovery of tire possession of lot one and the north half of lot two of block thirty-nine in Worthington, in section thirty-two, township six south, range nineteen east. The declaration is in the usual statutory form, to which the defendants filed a plea of not guilty. A jury was waived aid the case tried before the Circuit Judge upon an agreed statement of facts, which resulted in a finding and judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The judgment has been brought here by the defendants for review.

We see no occasion to set out the -agreed statement of facts. It is sufficient to state that the plaintiff’s title is based upon a tax deed executed to- him on behalf of the State of Florida by W. T. Weeks, the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Bradford County, on the 22nd day of March, A. D. 1915. This tax deed embraces several different parcels of land, covered by different tax certificates, and includes the two parcels in question as having, been covered by Certificate No-. 169, assessed to John K. Stephens. All of such lands are stated therein to have been sold by the Tax -Collector of Bradford County on the first day of July, A. D. 1912, for unpaid taxes for the year 1911. Nine errors are assigned, but the plaintiff and the defendants agree that only two points aré presented for determination, which are stated in the briefs as follows: “One is whether or not the failure of. a Board of County Commissioners to select at a proper time, in each year, a newspaper in which to publish the delinquent tax list, as provided by Section .50 of Chapter 5596, Acts of 1907, Section 558 Compiled Laws, 1914, is a fatal defect and [711]*711such as will invalidate a tax deed issued on a certificate -for the sale of lands for unpaid taxes in that year. •

“The other main question is, whether or not at a sale of land for unpaid taxes under, the provisions of said Section 50, Chapter 5596, Acts of 1907, aforesaid, there can be added to the tax upon the land the taxes due by the same person upon the personal property, assessed to him upon the same assessment roll and such land can be sold under said Section- 50, for the unpaid tax upon both the real and personal property; in other words, can you add the tax for personal property to- the land and sell the land for both the tax on real estate and personal property, under this section of the law ? These are the main issues to be reviewed or decided by this Court.”

The agreed statement of facts upon which the cause was submitted for determination contains the following statement: “It is agreed that the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners of Bradford County, Florida, do not show that they selected any newspaper at any time during the year 1912, in which to publish a §ale of real estate in the year 1912, for the unpaid faxes of 19x1, as provided by Sec. 50, Chapter 5596, Acts of 1907.

“It is agreed that the said Board of County Commissioners did, at their regular meeting in January, 19x1, pass the following order, to-wit: ‘The Bradford County Telegraph was designated the - County .official paper to continue for the full term: of two years, and the Clerk was instructed to notify the Secretary of State the action of said Board.’

. “That said order constitutes the only, action of said Board in selecting any newspaper until after the expiration of the year 1912, so far as shown by the minutes of ■ said-Board. The notice of tax sale in 191.2 was published in the Bradford County Telegraph.”

[712]*712The statute regulating the selection of a newspaper in which the advertisement of the tax sale was to be published, then in force, was Section 50 of Chapter 5596 of the Laws of Florida, (Acts of 1907, p. 27,) Compiled Laws of 1914, Section 558, which reads as follows: “If the taxes upon any real estate shall not be paid before the first day of April of any year, the Tax Collector shall advertise and sell in the maimer following: He shall make out a statement of all such real estate, specifying the amount due on each parcel, together with the cost of advertising and expense of sale, in the same order in which the land was assessed, and such list shall be published once each week- for five consecutive weeks in some newspaper published in the county, if there be a newspaper, said newspaper to be selected by the Board of County Commissioners at their first regular meeting in February of each year, and the newspaper so selected shall have been continuously published in the county for a period of not less than one year prior to its selection; Provided, That should there be no such newspaper a newspaper published for a less period of time .may be selected, and if there be no such newspaper published in the county, then by posting in three public places in the county, one of which shall be at the court house, and the newspaper’s charge for advertising shall be fifteen cents per line for the five insertions, per single column, and the Tax Collector shall receive the same for posting at three public places, but in neither case shall there be any charge for the head notice; Provided, That this act shall not apply to lands sold for non-payment of taxes for the year 1906. The Comptroller is authorized to audit said publisher’s charges and draw his warrant for same out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropri[713]*713ated. The editor, publisher or owner shall have attached to his account an affidavit that he has not directly or indirectly paid or promised to pay any Tax Collector or any other person any consideration whatever, or any compensation of any description for having said tax notice published in his paper.” r

We had occasion to discuss this statute in Townsend v. Brown, 69 Fla. 155, 67 South. Rep. 869, wherein we held: “The provision of the statute requiring a publication in a newspaper, ‘said newspaper to be selected * * * in February,’ is not mandatory as to the time of the selection, but the duty continues till properly performed.” We also held therein: A failure to comply strictly with those provisions of tax laws which are intended for the guidance of officers in the conduct of business devolved upon them, designated to' secure order, system and dispatch in proceedings, and by a disregard of which rights of parties interested cannot be injuriously affected, will not usually render the proceedings void; but where the requisites prescribed are intended for the protection of the citizen, and to prevent a sacrifice of his property, and a disregard of them1 might and generally would injuriously affect his rig'hts, they cannot be disregarded, and failure to comply with them will render the proceeding invalid. In this holding we followed our prior decisions in Starks v. Sawyer, 56 Fla. 596, 47 South. Rep. 513, and Clark-Ray-Johnson Co. v. Williford, 62 Fla. 453, 56 South. Rep. 938. Also see Hightower v. Hogan, 69 Fla. 86, 68 South. Rep. 669. In Parker v. Evening News Publishing Co., 54 Fla. 544, text 548, 45 South. Rep. 309, we held that under the provisions of Section 5 of Article VIII of the State Constitution, as amended, the powers and duties of County Commissioners are purely statutory, and cited in support of such holding [714]*714Board of Commissioners of Escambia County v. Board of Pilot Commissioners of Port of Pensacola, 52 Fla. 197, 42 South. Rep. 697, 120 Amer. St. Rep. 196. We also held in Parker v. Evening News Publishing Co., supra,

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

Related

Homestead News, Inc. v. Homer
28 Fla. Supp. 201 (Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, 1967)
State Ex Rel. Himes v. Culbreath
174 So. 422 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
Overstreet v. Gordon
163 So. 477 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1935)
White v. Crandon
156 So. 303 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1934)
Thursby v. Stewart
137 So. 7 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)
State Ex Rel. Landis v. Wheat
137 So. 277 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)
Amos v. Mathews
126 So. 308 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
Richmond Trust Co. v. Charlotte County
300 F. 121 (S.D. Florida, 1924)
Clark ex rel. Townsend-Bower Co. v. Cochran
85 So. 250 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1920)
Amos v. Jacksonville Realty & Mortgage Co.
81 So. 524 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 So. 805, 73 Fla. 708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephens-v-futch-fla-1917.