Brooksville Abstract Co. v. Kirk
| Citation | 133 So. 629,101 Fla. 175 |
| Parties | BROOKSVILLE ABSTRACT CO. v. KIRK, Tax Collector, et al. |
| Decision Date | 14 April 1931 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
En banc.
Suit by the Brooksville Abstract Company against C. C. Kirk, as Tax Collector of Hernando County, and another. From an order allowing the City of Brooksville to intervene and file a demurrer, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed with directions.
Syllabus by the Court.
A bill of complaint seeking to enjoin the collection by the city tax collector of city taxes assessed against an abstract plant and also seeking to enjoin the county tax collector from the collection of state and county taxes assessed against the same property, is multifarious. In a suit against either of such officers, the taxing unit is a proper party defendant.
The allegation by a complainant in a bill of complaint that 'its said abstract plant is without value except in the hands of the complainant, and to the extent that complainant chooses to use same as a basis for producing documents of salable value, and that, in the hands of any other person than complainant, said plant would be valueless, saving only as said complainant might lend value thereto by explaining the contents thereof, or assisting in the use thereof, and saving further only the intrinsic value of the few pounds of paper and bottles of ink, and other materials composing said plant, which intrinsic value is so small as to be negligible' is not sufficient to state a cause of action. It is a matter of common knowledge that an abstract plant is tangible property possessing the attribute of value.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Hernando County; F. L Stringer, judge.
Herbert Smithson, of Brooksville, for appellant.
F. B Coogler and C. H. Lockhart, both of Brooksville, for appellees.
In this case appellant filed bill of complaint against C. C. Kirk, as tax collector of Hernando county, and P. H. Grelle, as tax collector of the city of Brooksville in Hernando county, to enjoin the collection of the tax assessed by the county tax assessor against personal property of the appellant, the same being what is commonly known as an abstract plant, and to enjoin the collection of the tax on the same property assessed by the tax assessor of the city of Brooksville.
Neither the city of Brooksville nor the county of Hernando was made a party to the bill of complaint. The circuit court by its order allowed the city of Brooksville by its attorneys to intervene and to file a demurrer. From the order allowing the intervention and filing of the demurrer appeal was taken.
The county of Hernando and the city of Brooksville are each shown by the bill of complaint to be parties at interest in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Dane County Title Co. v. Board of Review of City of Madison
...to property taxes. Hidalgo Guarantee Abstract Co. v. City of Edinburg, 1949, Tex.Civ.App., 181 S.W.2d 597; Brooksville Abstract Co. v. Kirk, 1931, 101 Fla. 175, 133 So. 629; Schleman v. Guaranty Title Co., 1943, 153 Fla. 379, 15 So.2d 754, 149 A.L.R. 1029; Leon Loan & Abstract Co. v. Equali......
-
Schleman v. Guaranty Title Co.
...of March 10, 1943. The order of reconsideration was entered largely because the case of Brooksville Abstract Co. v. Kirk, 101 Fla. 175, 133 So. 629, had not been considered. The cause comes before this Court petition for interlocutory writ of certiorari authorized by Supreme Court Rule No. ......
- Nuzzo v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.