Starks v. Sawyer
| Decision Date | 31 October 1908 |
| Citation | 47 So. 513,56 Fla. 596 |
| Parties | STARKS et al. v. SAWYER et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Volusia County; Minor S. Jones, Judge.
Action by Emma E. Starks and others against Sarah R. Sawyer and James E. Alexander. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs bring error. Reversed and remanded.
Syllabus by the Court
A failure to comply strictly with those provisions of tax laws which are intended for the guide of officers in the conduct of business devolved upon them, designed to secure order system, and dispatch in proceedings, and by a disregard of which the rights of parties interested cannot be injuriously affected, will not usually render the proceeding 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 them might, and generally would injuriously affect his rights, they cannot be disregarded and failure to comply with them will render the proceeding invalid.
The provision of the statute, requiring the clerk of the circuit court to mail a copy of the notice of application for a tax deed to the owner of the land, or if the owner be unknown, to deliver or mail such copy to the person, last paying taxes on the property, was intended for the benefit of the landowner, and a disregard of the provision, when applicable, renders the tax deed invalid.
The validity of a tax sale certificate and the rights of the holder thereof, other than a governmental agency of the state, are to be determined by the laws in force at the time the certificate is acquired. A statute subsequently passed cannot constitutionally impair any of the substantial rights secured to a private holder by the existing laws when the certificate was acquired.
A statute, enacted after the acquisition by a private party of a tax sale certificate, requiring a particular and additional notice to be given to the owner of the land before a deed issues on the certificate, when the right to a deed had not become absolute, and the giving of the notice imposes no burden upon the holder of the certificate, may not impair any substantial right of the holder of the certificate, and consequently may not be an impairment of vested property rights or a deprivation of property without due process of law.
A charge directing a verdict for the defendants should never be given, unless it is clear that there is no evidence whatever adduced that could in law support a verdict for the plaintiffs. If the evidence is conflicting, or will admit of different reasonable inferences, or if there is evidence tending to prove the issue, it should be submitted to the jury as a question of fact, and not taken from them and passed upon by the judge as a question of law.
Where the testimony overcomes the effect of the prima facie regularity of the tax sale proceedings afforded by the deed under the statute, it is incumbent upon the party claiming title through the tax deed to prove its validity.
Where there was evidence upon which the jury could legally have found for the plaintiffs, an affirmative charge for the defendants is error.
COUNSEL Baker & Baker, for plaintiffs in error.
Stewart & Bly, for defendants in error.
This writ of error is to a judgment for the defendants, in an action of ejectment to recover the possession of lands in Volusia county, Fla. At the trial the plaintiffs showed a title by conveyance and descent. In support of a plea of not guilty a tax deed, dated November 18, 1902, was introduced by the defendant, over objections interposed by the plaintiffs. In rebuttal the plaintiffs introduced the testimony of the clerk of the circuit court 'that he had no record in his office as to the issuance or forwarding of any notice of the application for said deed to any one,' but recalled that he had sent a notice of the application for the tax deed to a person in another county, whom he was told by the applicant for the tax deed, was the agent of the person to whom the land was assessed.
The statute in force when the tax deed was issued requires notice to be published by the clerk of the circuit court of the application for a tax deed, and, after giving the form of the deed, provides that:
In the case of City of Orlando v. Equitable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stalnaker v. State
...of law. Cameron & Barkley Co. v. Law-Engle Co., 98 Fla. 920, 124 So. 814; McKinnon v. Johnson, 57 Fla. 120, 48 So. 910; Starks v. Sawyer, 56 Fla. 596, 47 So. 513; Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Williams, 37 Fla. 20 So. 558; Southern Exp. Co. v. Williamson, 66 Fla. 286, 63 So. 433, L.R.A.1916C......
-
Tampa Shipbuilding & Engineering v. Adams
...of law. Cameron & Barkley Co. v. Law-Engle Co., 98 Fla. 920, 124 So. 814; McKinnon v. Johnson, 57 Fla. 120, 48 So. 910; Starks v. Sawyer, 56 Fla. 596, 47 So. 513; Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Williams, 37 Fla. 20 So. 558; Southern Exp. Co. v. Williamson, 66 Fla. 286, 63 So. 433, L. R. A.191......
-
City of Hollywood v. Bair
...of law. See Cameron & Barkley Co. v. Law-Engle Co., 98 Fla. 920, 124 So. 814; McKinnon v. Johnson, 57 Fla. 120, 48 So. 910; Starks v. Sawyer, 56 Fla. 596, 47 So. 513; Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Williams, 37 Fla. 20 So. 558; Southern Exp. Co. v. Williamson, 66 Fla. 286, 63 So. 433, L.R.A.1......
-
Pendarvis v. Pfeifer
... ... question of law. Cameron, etc., Co. v. Law-Engle ... Co., 98 Fla. 920, 124 So. 814; McKinnon v ... Johnson, 57 Fla. 120, 48 So. 910; Starks v ... Sawyer, 56 Fla. 596, 47 So. 513; Florida Cent., ... etc., R. Co. v. Williams, 37 Fla. 406, 20 So. 558; ... Southern Exp. Co. v. Williamson, ... ...