The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1889-02-12

J. B. f. Sloan, ct al, Appellants, VS. Susan NJ.
Sloan, ct al, ppellees-Marion county
RANEY, C.J.:
L. The general rule IS thai party whose IT,
tie TO land is legal in its character, must have
possession of the land to enti,le him to equitable
relief against a cloud upon his title. Possession
is not essential where the title is equitable.
@ Possession by a duly authorized agent having
charge of all the land and engaged in keeping off
lrcspassers is sufficient To sustain the equitable
Jurisdiction in favor OF owners OF legal title, who
are themselves nOn-resldenls.
Where the instrument or proceeding com
plained of as constituting cloud upon title IS void
upOn its face or where the instrument is not void
upon its face, but the party claiming under it
must in order to recover upon it, necessarily offer
evidence that will inevitably show its invalidtty
and destroy its effect, such instrument is not
cloud upon title within the legal definition OF
the term
4. An administrators deed purporting to co n
yey lands sold by him under order Ota court
which, as to its power to make such an order,
is a court of special and limited jurisdiction, is
not, nor are such deed, and order and other
sale proceedings, cloud upon title when the
facts or fact essential to the courts jurisdiction
TO make the order do not appear on the order
or the proceedings upon which such order Is
based.
s. A tax deed regular upon its face, and which
a statute has made priaa tacie evidence OF the
regularity Of all the proceedings connected with
The assessment and sale, but which is founded
upon a void assessment, is cloud upon title.
g. Neither the general revenue law OF 1909,
Chapter 1713, as amended in 1872, by Chapter
1887, nor that of 1874, Chapter 1915, authorized
Collector of Revenue TO assess lands for
taxes An assessment OF land made
under either of said statutes b.
Collector of Revenue on tax roll oil 1878 after
The same had been delivered TO him by the As
of Z " nd
conferred no power upon him. A sale made by
him under the above act OF 1874, and u deed exc
cuted by the Clerk of the 9 'uri, pursuant to
such SALE conveyed no title To the purchaser, !,
and the deed is not within the protection Of the
63,i section of the said act, limiting the grounds
upon which, and the time within which, an ac-
ton to set it aside may be commenced.
z The County Court as it existed nder the
Constitution of 1868, prior to the amend ment "l
1875 wa in its power TO sell The lands OF
dccedents for the payment OF debts. court OF
special snd limited statutory jurisdiction, and
notion not one OF general and original constitutional
jurisdiction over the subject OF such sales.
g. Being court of special and limited juris-
diction. an order made by it for the sale OF land
OF decedent is not OF itself. independent OF
recital of the juri-dictonal TACT IN 1t. or In the
sale proceedings eliminating In it, evidence that
the court had Jurisdiction OF the subject of such
sale.
Q. Prior 10 the legislation OF 1870, $40, ct seQ,
.. SO. ct ssq, McClellans Digest, as to such
sales an exhaustion of the personal estate Of the
decedent was essential to the Jurisdiction or
power OF the County Court to order sale; and
unless the TACT of such exhaustion appears 10 the
! order or somewhere in the proceedings upon
| which it is based, the order is corom non judsce
and void even upon collateral attack If the
fact Of such exhaustion appears anywhere in such
proceedings, The order Of sale. though it may be
silent upon the eubject of exhaustion, is never
theJ.,ss an adjudication of the existence of the
| fact of such exhaustion.
| 10. Adverse possession of land under claim of
! title founded on written instrument must, TO
be effective against the true title, be continuous
| for the period of seven years.
Affirmed in part. Reversed in part.
A. W. Cockrell & Son, for Appellants; c. p &
J. G. Cooper, for Appellees.