Smith v. Philips

Citations

• 51 Fla. 327

Syllabus

<p>1. Under Chap. 4115 Laws of 1898, a sale of lands in 1894 for the 1893 tax assessment was authorized.</p> <p>2. The mere omission from the description of lands embraced in a tax deed of the words “Tallahassee meridian” does not render a tax deed void, since it' must be presumed that only Florida lands are being sold and upon such presumption no possible ambiguity is made to appear.</p> <p>3. The insertion by the Clerk into the statutory form of a tax deed of the words “the required thirty days notice having been given” is unnecessary but being a step in the statutory proceedings antecedent to the deed, does not render the deed void on its face; the fact, however, is presumed subject to rebuttal.</p> <p>4. A tax deed, after reciting separate sales of two forties to the same purchaser, does not show conclusively a joint sale by the recital therein that the grantee had acquired the interest of the purchaser to the lands by virtue of such tax “sale,” as appears endorsed on the “certificate</p> <p>5. The statutory form of the tax deed does not make provision for an assignment and the burden is upon the claimant under a tax deed, who was not the purchaser at the sale, to prove the assignment.</p> <p>6. Substantial compliance only is required by statute with the form of the tax deed prescribed in Chap. 4115. The use of the words “done in the presence of” two witnesses in lieu of “signed and sealed in the presence of’ does not render the deed void.</p>