ALTON PIERCE AND GEORGE A. PATTON, APPELLANTS,
v.
J. M. BRUNSWICK AND BALK CO., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reversed a lower court's decree, finding that the complainant had no equitable grounds to seek relief against the appellants. The primary issue was the validity of a tax sale, but the court found insufficient information to determine if the tax assessment was excessive.
No, the complainant did not have a case entitling them to relief in a court of equity. The court could not determine if the tax assessment was excessive due to a lack of specific valuation information in the record.
“The only question for this court to consider is the validity of the tax sale made by GTeo. A. Patton, on the 5th day of May, 1884, of the billiard table embraced in said mortgage and under an assessment for State and county taxes for the year 1883.”
Identifies the central legal question regarding the tax sale's validity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants challenged a lower court's decree, arguing the complainant lacked standing in equity. The case involved a tax sale of a billiard table …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bill In Equity cases and more on FLexlaw
Judge McClellan
delivered the opinion of the court:
The appellants assign some six different grounds of error upon which they ask a reversal of the decree made by the court below, only one of which this court deems it necessary to consider, and that is the first, which is that the complainant had no such case as entitled it to relief in a court of equity against them or either of them. There is nothing alleged by appellants against the mortgage, its execution, its record, or that the mortgage debt was actually due and •owing. The only question for this court to consider is the validity of the tax sale made by GTeo.
A. Patton, on the 5th day of May, 1884, of the billiard table embraced in said mortgage and under an assessment for State and county taxes for the year 1883. This assessment, as appears from the bill and answers, was made for the year 1883, and upon the table and fixtures embraced in the mortgage alone and upon no other property of said J.
M. McNiel, the mortgagor. It was assessed as the property of said McNiel. But it does not appear at what valuation the carom table and fixtures were assessed for the year 1883. Neither the bill nor answers furnish definite information upon this point, and therefore this court is unable to determine whether the amount given as asses'sed as State and county taxes for the year 1883, under which the property was sold, was excessive, illegal and improper, or not. The answers of Patton and Pierce are responsive to the allegations of the bill upon all the points in regard to fraud, collusion and the purchase of the property on the joint account of Patton, the Collector of Revenue, and Pierce. -The case was heard upon the bill, answers and general replication. The equities of the bill are denied by the responsive answers of the defendants, and the court below erred in giving relief to the complainant.
The decree of the court below is reversed and the cause remanded, with instructions to dismiss the bill as to Patton and Pierce, unless the complainant makes application to amend the same.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. Wilson, 139 Fla. 698 (Fla. 1939)…nst the defendant. The defendant, who is here the appellant, is contending that: “Where all the material allegations in the bill are denied in the answer, and the cause then heard on bill and answer, the bill must be dismissed. Pierce v. Brunswick, 23 Fla. 283, 2 Sou. Rep. 366,” and, “On a hearing on bill and answer, after the time for taking testimony has expired, . every allegation in the answer responsive to the bill is taken as true. Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Grey, 100 Fla. 958, 130 Sou. Rep. 274,”…
-
Lykes v. Beauchamp, 49 Fla. 333 (Fla. 1905)
-
Watson v. Bair, 73 Fla. 255 (Fla. 1917)…ern Lumber & Supply Co. v. Verdier, 51 Fla. 570, 40 South. Rep. 676. We are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to sustain the burden so cast by the law upon him, therefore the decree must be affirmed. See Pierce v. Brunswick & Balk Co., 23 Fla. 283, 2 South. Rep. 366; Ropes v. Jenerson, 45 Fla. 556, 34 South. Rep. 955, 110 Am. St. Rep. 79; Lykes v. Beauchamp, 49 Fla. 333, 38 South. Rep. 603. [*269] Decree affirmed. Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence