Case Name: W. L. KESTER v. NELLIE L. COWAN BOSTWICK (Formerly Nellie L. Cowan) a widow, WILCHAR HOLDING COMPANY, a Florida corporation, suing for her use and benefit, and GEORGE O. BUTLER, also suing for her use and benefit
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1943-07-30
Citations: 153 Fla. 450
Docket Number: 
Parties: W. L. KESTER v. NELLIE L. COWAN BOSTWICK (Formerly Nellie L. Cowan) a widow, WILCHAR HOLDING COMPANY, a Florida corporation, suing for her use and benefit, and GEORGE O. BUTLER, also suing for her use and benefit.
Judges: BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL, CHAPMAN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 153
Pages: 450–451

Head Matter:
W. L. KESTER v. NELLIE L. COWAN BOSTWICK (Formerly Nellie L. Cowan) a widow, WILCHAR HOLDING COMPANY, a Florida corporation, suing for her use and benefit, and GEORGE O. BUTLER, also suing for her use and benefit.
15 So. (2nd) 208
June Term, 1943
July 30, 1943
En Banc
Rehearing Denied October 12, 1943
Miller & Fitzsimmons, McCune, Hiaasen & Fleming and Vincent C. Giblin, for appellant.
Milam, McIlvane & Milam, for appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
This case (M-124) is a companion case to M-123, docketed under the same title and decided this date. There is involved here no question of mesne profits or benefits to the land by reason of permanent improvements made on it. Only the question of the sufficiency of the description in the application for the tax deed is involved in this case.
That question is concluded by what we said in the former case (M-123) but in addition to what we there said, the description was fatally defective in this case because of failure to comply with Section two of Chapter 17457, Acts of 1935, in that a large number of certificates were included by number in one place and the descriptions were recited in another place but there was nothing by which the certificate and appropriate description could be tied together. In this, we do not imply that every certificate must be separately advertised. It would be all right to lump certificates for this purpose if the description of the land followed the number of certificate or some other method was employed to definitely connect the number of the certificate with the description of the land it represents.
Affirmed on authority of Case M-123, same title as this, decided this date.
Affirmed.
BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL, CHAPMAN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
ADAMS, J., dissents.
BROWN, J., not participating.