Judges: BUFORD, C.J. —
Attorneys: Gedney, Johnston Lilienthal and Joel W. Massie, for Appellants;
Metcalf, Hiatt Finch, for Appellees.
Filed: Oct. 28, 1931
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This was a suit to cancel a tax sale certificate issued by the authorities of the Town of Boynton against the property of the appellants described in the Bill of Complaint for taxes assessed by said town against such property for the year 1929 and to have decreed the Town tax assessment for the year 1929 to be null and void. It is alleged in the Bill of Complaint that the certificate was issued pursuant to a sale held at 12:00 o'clock *Page 384 noon November 3rd, 1930. The lands were bought in a
Summary: This was a suit to cancel a tax sale certificate issued by the authorities of the Town of Boynton against the property of the appellants described in the Bill of Complaint for taxes assessed by said town against such property for the year 1929 and to have decreed the Town tax assessment for the year 1929 to be null and void. It is alleged in the Bill of Complaint that the certificate was issued pursuant to a sale held at 12:00 o'clock *Page 384 noon November 3rd, 1930. The lands were bought in at..
More
Where lands are excluded from a municipal corporation on the basis of the holding in the Stuart case, the court in effect determines that under the facts found to be true the statute is unconstitutional. Hence until the facts are found upon which the judgment of ouster can be entered, the statute is not
unconstitutional.
There is a difference between a case where a statute is unconstitutional per se and a case where a statute is found to be unconstitutional only because of its application to certain facts.
An objection that a statute is unconstitutional because of its application can be waived by failure to object to it and such objection has no effect prior to an adjudication. See Pierce Oil Corp. v. Phoenix Ref. Co., 259 U.S. 125; Pierce v. Somerset R. Co., 171 U.S. 641; Wall vs. P. S. C. Min. Co.,244 U.S. 407.
