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

• Decision Date: 15 December 1936
• Parties: SOUTHERN PINE CO. OF GEORGIA v. MURPHY INV. CO.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

171 So. 325

126 Fla. 531

SOUTHERN PINE CO. OF GEORGIA v. MURPHY INV. CO.

Florida Supreme Court

December 15, 1936

Suit by the Murphy Investment Company against the Southern Pine Company of Georgia. From a decree in favor of the plaintiff the defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

BROWN J., dissenting. Appeal from Circuit Court Citrus County; Fred L. Stringer, judge.

COUNSEL

Thomas Sale, of Panama City, for appellant.

Scofield & Scofield, of Inverness, for appellee.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

These two appeals involve tax certificate foreclosures and have been consolidated for hearing and 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 (Ex.Sess.), 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., 171 So. 323 (decided at the present term); Lyon Co. v. Phoenix Tax Title Corporation, 170 So. 746 (decided at the present term); Allison Realty Co. v. Graves Inv. Co., 115 Fla. 48, 155 So. 745; Capital Finance Corporation v. Giles, 111 Fla. 527, 149 So. 585; Coral Gables Properties v. Stopler, 115 Fla. 231, 155 So. 231, 155 So. 799; City of Bradenton v. Lee, 120 Fla. 100, 162 So. 139; City of Sanford v. Dial, 104 Fla. 1, 142 So. 233; Green Cove Farms, Inc. v. Ivey, 119 Fla. 561, 161 So. 56; Gibson v. Central Farmers' Trust Co., 116 Fla. 295, 156 So. 714; Hackney v. McKenny, 113 Fla. 176, 151 So. 524; Kennedy v. Hancock, 108 Fla. 601, 146 So. 667; Lee v. Booker & Co., Inc., 108 Fla. 534, 146 So. 546; Milton v. City of Marianna, 107 Fla. 251, 144 So. 400; Patterson v. Crenshaw, 110 Fla. 310, 148 So. 543; Ranger Realty Co. v. Hefty, 112 Fla. 654, 152 So. 439; Ranger Realty Co. v. Miller, 102 Fla. 378, 136 So. 546; Ridgeway v. Reese, 100 Fla. 1304, 131 So. 136; Ridgeway v. Peacock, 100 Fla. 1297, 131 So. 140; Stubbs v. Florida State Finance Co., 118 Fla. 450, 159 So. 527; Security Land & Inv. Co. v. Ranger Realty Co., 115 Fla. 640, 156 So. 23; Saussy v. Northern Inv. Corporation, 122 Fla. 265, 165 So. 268; Tax Securities Corporation v. Manatee Corporation, 115 Fla. 655, 155 So. 742; West Virginia Hotel Corporation v. Foster Co., 101 Fla. 1147, 132 So. 842; Washbish v. Elvins, 114 Fla. 575, 154 So. 315; Wade v. City of Jacksonville, 113 Fla. 718, 152 So. 197.

Where foreclosure suit under chapter 14572, Acts 1929 (Ex.Sess.) 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 indorsement to that effect, executed by the clerk of the...