Watson v. Holliday

• Decision Date: 25 February 1896
• Citation: 37 Fla. 488,19 So. 640
• Parties: WATSON v. HOLLIDAY.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

19 So. 640

37 Fla. 488

WATSON v. HOLLIDAY.

Florida Supreme Court

February 25, 1896

Appeal from circuit court, Jackson county; W. D. Barnes, Judge.

Action by Thomas C. Watson against T. R. Holliday. Bill dismissed and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

The settled rule in this state, that in bills to remove clouds from the title to real estate, it must be shown that complainant was in possession of the land when the bill was filed, or that the land was wild and unoccupied, is decisive of this case, as the bill filed for the purpose stated, and dismissed, does not allege any possession on part of complainant, or that the land was wild and unoccupied.

COUNSEL John H. Carter, for appellant.

Francis B. Carter, for appellee.

OPINION

MABRY C.J.

The object sought to be accomplished by the bill filed in this case on the part of appellant against appellee is the removal of a deed based upon a tax sale alleged to be a cloud upon the title to real estate claimed by appellant.

The amended bill of complaint, the one relied upon in the case alleges that appellant was the owner in fee simple of the W 1/2 of the S.E. 1/4 of section 35, township 5, range 12 N and W., to which appellee claimed title by deed, but that said deed was invalid, and constituted a cloud upon the title of the former. The source of appellant's title to the land and its deraignment to him are set out, and it is stated that said land was sold in 1884, for the taxes of 1883, to the state, and that the state's certificate of purchase was transferred to one Tharpe, who obtained a deed thereon in 1887, and conveyed to appellee. The tax deed and all proceedings subsequent to the assessment are alleged to be void on grounds stated, and the special prayer is that the deed to appellee and the tax deed to his grantor be delivered up and canceled, that the court decree the title of appellant as against appellee and all persons claiming by or through him, and for possession of the land. The original answer, the allegations of which are retained so far as applicable to the amended bill, and the answer to said bill, allege certain matters as a defense; but, in view of the disposition of the case here, it is not necessary that all such matters of defense be inserted in this opinion. The answer reserves the following as ground of demurrer, to be argued upon the hearing of the case, viz.: 'That the complainant has not, in and by his said bill, made or stated such a case as doth or ought to entitle him to the relief thereby prayed.' After replication, the cause was heard on bill and answers, and was dismissed at appellant's cost.

There is no allegation in the bill th...