Opinion
November 2, 1951. Rehearing Denied December 7, 1951.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Joseph S. White, J.
Roebuck Roebuck, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
M.L. Esarey, West Palm Beach, for appellees.
It appears by the record in this cause that the appellee, George Charles, in 1944 obtained from the Town of Riviera Beach, a municipal corporation, a municipal tax deed to described land comprising 40 acres, and went into the immediate possession thereof and continuously remained thereon, and on September 8, 1950, filed a suit to quiet title against the claim of title of appellant, Congress Grove Land Company. The appellant held a deed to the described land dated December 12, 1944, from R.S. Yoemans and wife. The appellant had previously instituted a suit to quiet title against the claims of George Charles in and to the described land. The two cases were consolidated and the evidence adduced was heard by the chancellor.
The chancellor, after hearing all the testimony, held that the appellee had been in the exclusive, open and adverse possession of the described property under the municipal tax deed for a period of more than four years prior to the date of filing his bill of complaint. It was the defendant's-appellant's theory that the municipal tax deed under which appellee held or asserted title and possession was invalid for various reasons set out in their brief. The trial Court held against these contentions, and, after a careful review thereof, it cannot be said that the holdings of the Chancellor were erroneous.
The appellant does not contend that it was in possession of the property after acquiring its deed in 1944, although it vigorously contended that the possession asserted by the plaintiff-appellee to the property failed to conform with our statutory requirements, but the Chancellor held against the contention and entered a decree forever quieting the title of the appellee as against the claims of the appellant asserted by it under its deed obtained during the year 1944. It is our view and conclusion that the appellant failed to carry the burden of showing reversible error as required by our adjudications.
Affirmed.
SEBRING, C.J., and HOBSON and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.