EMPIRE SECURITIES CORPORATION AND ISAAC T. COOK, APPELLANTS,
v.
W. H. PONTIOUS, APPELLEE

Fla. | 1929-08-01
Whitfield, Ellis, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur., Terrell, C. J., disqualified.
98 Fla. 380 Florida Supreme Court (1929) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decree, directing the dismissal of the bill of complaint in a case similar to a previously decided companion case.


Holding

Yes, the decree of the court below is reversed with directions to dismiss the bill of complaint.


Key Quotes

“This is a companion case, and similar in every respect to the case of Isaac T. Cook and George E. Ricker v. W. H. Pontious, decided at this term, wherein the decree of the court below was reversed with directions.”

Establishes the direct relationship and similarity to a prior case.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

This case is a companion to another case decided by the court, Isaac T. Cook and George E. Ricker v. W. H. Pontious, which also involved a similar dec…

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.

Opinion of the Court
Campbell, Circuit Judge:

Campbell, Circuit Judge:

This is a companion case, and similar in every respect to the case of Isaac T. Cook and George E. Ricker v. W. H. Pontious, decided at this term, wherein the decree of the court below was reversed with directions. See 98 Fla. 373, 122 So. R. 765.

Under the opinion above mentioned, the decree of the court below in this ease will be reversed, with directions for the chancellor to dismiss the bill of complaint, without prejudice to the rights of the complainant to file another bill of complaint, should the respondents named as owners of the former record title to the property described in the present bill of complaint, or those claiming under them, ever assert claims or interests under such former record title derogatory to the title of complainants under the drainage tax deed.

Reversed with directions.

Whitfield, Ellis, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur. Terrell, C. J., disqualified.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Tangeman v. Sjoblom, 100 Fla. 1059 (Fla. 1930)
    …s against the former record title on the theory that the former record title constitutes a cloud on the tax title. Stuart v. Stephanus, 94 Fla. 1087, 114 So. R. 767; Cook v. Pontious, 98 Fla. 373, 123 So. R. 765; Empire Securities Corp. v. Pontious, 98 Fla. 380. 123 So. R. 767; Jordan v. Baugher, 98 Fla. 438, 124 So. R. 32. It is claimed by appellee that in the light of the decision in Jordan v. Baugher, supra, there was equity introduced into the bill by the pleadings of the defendant Anna L. Tangeman/an…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw