Saddler v. Smith

6 Citing cases

  1. Wells v. Thomas

    78 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1955)   Cited 12 times

    "There is authority for the proposition that such a special or short limitation period is not applicable to protect a tax title based on an insufficient description. The cases pro and con are to be found in an annotation at 133 A.L.R. 570. Saddler v. Smith, 1907, 54 Fla. 671, 45 So. 718, 14 Ann.Cas. 570, and Day v. Benesh, 1932, 104 Fla. 58, 139 So. 448, indicate that the courts of Florida adhere to the principle just stated. * * *"

  2. Alexander v. Cleveland

    79 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1955)   Cited 4 times

    Shriner v. Fountain, supra. See Wells v. Thomas, Fla., 1955, 78 So.2d 378; Saddler v. Smith, 54 Fla. 671, 45 So. 718; Susman v. Pockrus, Fla., 40 So.2d 223; Cremin v. Quigley, 104 Fla. 133, 139 So. 383; McKeown v. Collins, 38 Fla. 276, 21 So. 103; Carncross v. Lykes, 22 Fla. 587. 5 Am.Jur., Vendor Purchaser, Sec. 224, p. 683. In an attempt to bolster her position that she had furnished an abstract in full compliance with the terms of the contract, the seller, after she had furnished the abstract to the buyers, had placed of public record the affidavits of four persons showing that the seller and her predecessors in title had been in the actual possession and occupancy of the property in question for longer than the statutory period of limitations under a tax deed valid on its face.

  3. Susman v. Pockrus

    40 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1949)   Cited 5 times
    In Susman v. Pockrus, Fla., 40 So.2d 223, the question submitted and held defective was as follows: "`Did the court err in overruling the motion of the appellant * * to dismiss the * * * bill of Complaint.

    There is authority for the proposition that such a special or short limitation period is not applicable to protect a tax title based on an insufficient description. The cases pro and con are to be found in an annotation at 133 A.L.R. 570. Saddler v. Smith, 1907, 54 Fla. 671, 45 So. 718, 14 Ann.Cas. 570, and Day v. Benesh, 1932, 104 Fla. 58, 139 So. 448, indicate that the courts of Florida adhere to the principle just stated. But it will be readily observed that the tax deeds in question there were not issued as here, viz., pursuant to sale at public auction whereat the former owner appeared to bid.

  4. Seaboard All-Florida Railway v. Levitt

    141 So. 886 (Fla. 1932)   Cited 30 times

    This was a material and substantial departure from the statutory requirement, affirmatively appearing of record, and not waived. See in this connection Saddler v. Smith, 54 Fla. 671, 45 So. 718; Calumet River R. Co. v. Brown, (Ill.) 12 L.R.A. 84; Sleeper v. Killion, (Ia.) 147 N.W. 314; Steele v. Murray, 80 Ia. 336, 45 N.W. 1030; In re estate of Anderson, 125 Ia. 670, 101 N.W. 510; State v. Montegudo, 48 La. Ann. 1417, 20 So. 11; John Holland G. P. Co. v. Williams, 7 Ga. App. 173, 66 S.E. 540. Appellant has very forcibly argued in a strong brief that as this condemnation proceeding was in rem, the judgment was binding on appellee in spite of the flaw in the notice; that in such cases it is enough, on collateral attack, if the statute requires such notice as makes it reasonably certain that all persons interested who easily can be reached will have information of the proceedings, and that there is such probability as reasonably can be provided for that those at a distance will be informed, citing Appleton v. City of Newton (Mass.) 59 N.E. 648 and Huling v. Kaw Valley Ry. Imp. Co., 130 U.S. 559, 32 Law. ed. 1045; that where a person has actual notice that some proceeding is t

  5. Day v. Benesh

    139 So. 448 (Fla. 1932)   Cited 16 times

    "The description of property in a tax deed must be certain in itself, or at least capable of being made certain by matters referred to in the deed itself relating to the description; and evidence aliunde not referring to the deed, cannot be used to ascertain the land intended to be conveyed." In the above case, (also the case of Saddler v. Smith, 54 Fla. 671, 45 So. 718,) there was involved tax deeds which so imperfectly described the land that they were declared void on their face, and it was held that the four-year adverse possession under a tax title provided by the statute did not apply. The general rule is that a deed is not void for uncertainty (1) if the description is such as will enable a surveyor to ascertain and locate the land (Boley v. McMillan, 66 Fla. 159, 63 So. 703), or (2) if it is possible to ascertain and identify the land intended to be conveyed.

  6. LADD v. SMITH

    209 Ala. 114 (Ala. 1923)   Cited 9 times
    In Ladd v. Smith, 95 So. 280 (Ala. 1923), the Supreme Court of Alabama held that the requirement that the certificate show "the names of the parties thereto" "refers to the parties to the judgment or decree not necessarily to the parties to the cause."

    " familiar to judicial administration and processes, means "and another," or "and others." Saddler v. Smith, 54 Fla. 671, 45 So. 718, 14 Ann. Cas. 570; 21 C. J. p. 1255, note 27. When the abbreviation "et al."