Patterson v. Crenshaw

• Decision Date: 24 May 1933
• Citation: 110 Fla. 310,148 So. 543
• Parties: PATTERSON v. CRENSHAW.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

148 So. 543

110 Fla. 310

PATTERSON v. CRENSHAW.

Florida Supreme Court

May 24, 1933

Bill by J. C. Patterson against S.D. Crenshaw. A demurrer to the bill was sustained, and complainant appeals.

Reversed.

ELLIS and BROWN, JJ., dissenting. Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Amos Lewis, Judge.

COUNSEL

John H Carter and John H. Carter, Jr., both of Marianna, for appellant.

OPINION

BUFORD Justice.

In this case the appellant became the owner, by purchase and assignment, of a certain tax certificate. He filed bill of complaint to foreclose the lien evidenced by the certificate. It was alleged that he was the owner and holder of the certificate and has paid all subsequent and omitted taxes and seeks to foreclose the lien to enforce the payment of the amount of the face of the certificate, together with the amount of the subsequent and omitted taxes paid by him in the aggregate sum of $1,119.46.

A demurrer was interposed to the bill and sustained upon the seventh, eighth, and ninth grounds of demurrer. They are as follows:

'7. It does not appear from the allegations of said Bill that the amount of One Thousand One Hundred Nineteen ($1,119.46) and Forty Six One Hundredths Dollars which the Complainant avers is required to redeem said lands is in any way justifiable in law or in equity under any of the terms or conditions of chapter 14572, Acts of 1929 (Ex Sess.), Laws of Florida.

'8. It affirmatively appears from the bill, that the amount of $1119.46 which complainant avers is necessary to redeem the lands involved in this suit is in direct conflict with both the letter and spirit of the statute governing this action, towit: chapter 14572 (Ex. Sess.), Acts of 1929 Laws of Florida.

'9. It appears affirmatively from the allegations of the Bill of Complaint, that the Complainant in this case is seeking to impose upon the Defendant an arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust, inequitable, unauthorized and illegal penalty for redemption of the lands involved in this suit.'

Appellee has not favored us with a brief, although appellant's brief was filed April 23, 1932. We assume from the contents of appellant's brief that the contention was made in the court below that the complainant should not be allowed to recover the amount of the face of the tax certificate unless it was alleged that he had paid that amount for the certificate. This contention is not tenable, as has heretofore been...