Tyler v. Nobles
| Citation | 161 So. 283,117 Fla. 328 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Decision Date | 30 November 1934 |
| Parties | TYLER v. NOBLES. |
On Motion to Modify Jan. 7, 1935.
En Banc.
Error to Circuit Court, St. Lucie County; Elwyn Thomas, Judge.
Action by Frank M. Tyler against Orris Nobles. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
Reversed with directions.
COUNSEL C. O. Andrews, of Orlando, and F. L. Hemmings of Fort Pierce, for plaintiff in error.
Fee & Liddon, of Fort Pierce, for defendant in error.
The sole question involved in this case is whether or not a county tax collector, who has retired from office without receiving the maximum compensation allowed him under section 757, Rev. Gen. St. of 1920, section 970, Comp. Gen. Laws of 1927, as amended by chapter 15798, § 1, Acts of 1931 (Ex Sess.) Laws of Florida, is entitled to commissions on tax certificates issued by him to the state while in office but which were redeemed by his successor after he retired from office.
The court below, by sustaining a demurrer to the declaration, answered this question in the negative. Final judgment was entered in favor of the defendant, and this writ of error is from the final judgment.
The question raised here was conclusively settled by this court in Tyler v. Thomas et al., 114 Fla. 368, 153 So. 848. We do not see that we can add to what we said in that case, so the judgment below is reversed on authority of Tyler v. Thomas et al., 114 Fla. 368, 153 So. 848. See, also, Lee v. Smith et al., 111 Fla. 91, 149 So. 67, and Gay v. State ex rel. McKenney et al., 155 So. 845 decided by this court June 23, 1934.
Reversed.
On Motion to Modify.
This cause came on to be further heard on the motion to modify the judgment, and it appearing to the court that the law of the case was definitely settled in the decisions cited in our opinion filed November 30, 1934, that there must be an end to litigation some time, and that the plaintiff in error is entitled to judgment in his favor:
It is therefore ordered, adjudicated, and decreed that the motion to modify the judgment entered November 30 1934, be and the same is granted, in that the cause is reversed, with directions to the court below to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff in error; no interest to be allowed on said judgment.
It is so ordered.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. Bandy
...or sale. Tyler v. Thomas, 114 Fla. 368, 153 So. 848; Gay, Clerk, v. State ex rel. McKenney, 115 Fla. 584, 155 So. 845; Tyler v. Nobles, 117 Fla. 328, 161 So. 283; National Surety Corporation v. Sholtz, 123 Fla. 166 So. 213. 'It would be necessary to substitute the word 'unless' for 'until' ......
-
National Sur. Corp. v. Sholtz for Use and Benefit of Tyler
...... . . PER. CURIAM. . . The law. of this case has been definitely and finally settled in the. earlier decisions of this court, which hold that, inasmuch as. Frank M. Tyler, former tax collector of St. Lucie county, was. succeeded in office by Orris Nobles, the incumbent tax. collector, and retired from his office without having. received his maximum compensation as tax collector as allowed. him by section 970, C.G.L., as amended by chapter 15798, Acts. of 1931, Ex.Sess., § 1 and that inasmuch as the clerk of the. circuit court of St. Lucie ......
- Gill v. Smith
-
State Ex Rel. Hughes v. Caruthers
...... stated. He relies on Lee v. Smith, [131 Fla. 842] . 111 Fla. 91, 149 So. 67, reaffirmed in Tyler v. Thomas, 114 Fla. 368, 153 So. 848; Gay v. State, 115 Fla. 584, 155 So. 845; and Tyler v. Nobles, 117 Fla. 328, 161 So. 283, to support his. ......