The Ocala evening star. [volume] (Ocala, Fla.) 1895-1943, 1916-06-08
MR.. ANDERSON'S SIDE
OF THE QUESTION

below have appeared in the last issues
of the 0cala Banner and the Ocala
Evening Star respectively:
Star: Judge Bullock has decided
in favor of the city in the case against
F.. L. Anderson in the matter of street
paving certificates. The demurrer
filed by Mr.. Anderson has been over
ruled by the court, and this, acord-
ing to the city attorney, means that
the city will win the fight that was
begun about 1909. The case against
Mr.. Anderson involves street paving
certificates TO the amount of about
$1,000. A test case was brought by
the city to foreclose a lien against
paving on North Magnolia street in
volving $500, and Mr.. Anderson filed
demurrer"
Ocala Banner: 'In a case brought
by the City of Ocala against R. L.
Anderson on certain paving certifi-
Gates involving an amount of $1,000,
Judge Bullock has decided in favor of
the city. Had this case been decided
against the city it would have estab-
lished precedent, and the city might
have stood good to lose several
thousand dollars"
Doubtless matter of this kind is
of small interest to the public but it
may be well to make statement of
what the case in question really in
wolves and to free the matter from
the mistakes made by the reporters
in the above articles. If your readers
feel any interest at all in such a case
perhaps they might prefer to know
the real facts.
This suit was begun in October
1915 to enforce the city's claim of
$4,000 for paving done in November
1909. The suit is to subject the prop
erty owned by Mary S. Anderson and
not r. L. Anderson. The writer sold
and conveyed this lot twelve years
ago, that is, in November, 1904. This
was five years before any proceedings
We're taken to pave the street and the
deed of conveyance was promptly re-
corded
The grantee of r. L. Anderson con.
veyed that lot to Mary S. Anderson
in April, 1911 and this deed has beer
or record since it was executed.
After this paving was done the city
sometime in 1910, commenced proceed
ings against R. L. Anderson to en-
force a lien upon the property, al
though as stated, it had been convey
ed five or six years before. In this
suit the city was defeated, the Judge
ment being rendered in 1913.
Then the city applied to the legis.
lature, at its 1915 session, and OBJ
tanned the passage of an act, one sec,
tion of which provides that in case
of errors or irregularities in specia
assessments for public improvement.
the city may reassess the property
Under this supposed authority the
city is now seeking to assert against
Mary S. Anderson, its claim for work
done in 1909, two years before, she ac
CURED her title, no proceedings hav.
ing been taken against her grantol
who was the owner of the lot from
November, 1904 to April 1911, as
shown by the public records.
In short the city tried to enforce
its lien against the writer who has
no title, having sold the property five
years before the paving was done.
| The city did not proceed against the
party who owned the lot when the
work was done in 1909 and whose IT.
tie, as shown by the record, continued
from 1904 to 1911.
But in 1915, six years after doing
the work the city, backed up by its
legislative act, claims the right to en-
force a lien against one who purchas-
ed for a valuable consideration when
the city had no lien and that too, af-
ter, a judicial decision declaring that
| it had no lien. The writer has not
seen the decision of the court and on
lily knows of it through the articles
in the papers but the order was made
on demurrer, which is by no means
decisive of the merits. 1t is no harm
however, for the other side to indulge
at the present time, in a little harm
less optimism as to the final outcome
If a municipality, however, can
reach back over period of years
and fix "a lien against property in
the hands of purchasers in good faith,
| it might be well for those dealing in
city property to obtain certificate
from the city attorney before invest
LIMO. r. T.. Anderson.