Goulden v. Manreka Corp., 161 So. 284 (Fla. 1935). · Go Syfert
Search
Goulden v. Manreka Corp., 161 So. 284 (Fla. 1935). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
66 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: City of Gainesville, Florida D/B/A Gainesville Regional Utilities v. Parkwood Alachua Land Investments, Inc. (fladistctapp, 2026-04-08) · Strongest negative: City of Miami Beach v. Lansburgh (fladistctapp, 1969-01-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1935 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1935 1980 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "but see" City of Miami Beach v. Lansburgh
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1969 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284, 295 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) City of Gainesville, Florida D/B/A Gainesville Regional Utilities v. Parkwood Alachua Land Investments, Inc. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
Opinion at 7-8 (citing Fla. Power Corp. [v. City of Tallahassee, 18 So. 2d 638 , 674 (Fla. 1944)]; Orlando Orange Groves Co. [v. Hale, 161 So. 284, 294 (Fla. 1935)] (the “main principle” in construing a contract is to deduce the intention of the parties “from consideration of the whole instrument”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) North American Products Corp. v. Moore
M.D. Fla. · 2002 · confidence medium
Orlando Groves Co. v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284, 291 (Fla.1935); Prucha v. Guarantee Reserve Life Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Federal Deposit Insurance v. Mintz
S.D. Fla. · 1993 · confidence medium
FLORIDA COMMON LAW The defendants cite Orlando Orange Groves v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284, 288 (1935), for the proposition that the common law standard of liability for officers and directors is gross negligence (“gross misjudgment”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lackey v. Whitehall Corp.
D. Kan. · 1988 · confidence medium
Ace Electric Supply Co. v. Terra Nova Electric, Inc., 288 So.2d 544, 548 (Fla.App. 1st Dist 1973) (citing Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. *207 Hale, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284, 295 (Fla.1935)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Murphy v. O'Malley
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1988 · confidence medium
See Belcher v. Schilling, 309 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284, 288 (1935); and Greenspun v. Del.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) W. S. Badcock Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
5th Cir. · 1974 · confidence medium
As would the Florida courts in determining the obligations of the parties and the effect of their agreements where “. . . the terms of a written contract are in any respect uncertain or doubtful and the parties thereto have by their conduct placed a con *1229 struction upon the contract which is reasonable. . . .” Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284, 295 (1935). 6 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ace Electric Supply Co. v. Terra Nova Electric, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1973 · confidence medium
In Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284, 295 (1935), the Supreme Court said: "This court is committed to the doctrine that where the terms of a written contract are in any respect uncertain or doubtful and the parties thereto have by their conduct placed a construction upon the contract which is reasonable, such construction will be adopted by the court upon the principle that it is the duty of the court to give effect to the intention of the parties where it is not wholly at variance with the principles of correct legal interpretation of the terms of the contract." Se…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) S & J Mobile Home Sales, Inc. v. James Talcott, Inc.
M.D. Fla. · 1972 · confidence medium
In Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284, 295 (1935), the Supreme Court of Florida said: “This court is committed to the doctrine that where the terms of a written contract are in any respect uncertain or doubtful and the parties thereto have by their conduct placed a construction upon the contract which is reasonable, such construction will be adopted by the court upon the principle that it is the duty of the court to give effect to the intention of the parties where it is not wholly at variance with the principles of correct legal interpretation of the terms of the …
cited Cited as authority (rule) Instamatic Car Wash, Inc. v. Gruber
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1972 · confidence medium
Affirmed upon authority of the rule stated in Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284, 291 (1935).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Capital National Bank of Tampa, Cross-Appellant v. J.A. Hutchinson, Jr., Cross-Appellee
5th Cir. · 1970 · confidence medium
Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284, 291 (1935).
discussed Cited "see" Florida Sunrise v. Tri-M Investments
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284, 292 (1935) (citation omitted) (finding "net profits, generally speaking, implies what remains in the conduct of a business after deducting from its total receipts the expenses incurred in carrying on the business and that to such expenses may be charged . . . depreciation"); Southern Bell Tel. & Tel.
discussed Cited "see" Eli Research, Inc. v. United Communications Group, LLC
M.D.N.C. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284, 290 (1935); see also Corporate Express Office Prods., Inc. v. Phillips, 847 So.2d 406, 413-14 (Fla.2003) (holding that personal service contracts may be enforced by the surviving corporation after a merger, but that the employee’s consent is required when a personal service contract is purported to be assigned in a sale of assets).
discussed Cited "see" In Re Marineland Ocean Resorts, Inc. (2×)
Bankr. M.D. Fla. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159, 174 , 161 So. 284 (1935); see also Holman v. Halford, 518 So.2d 442, 443 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1988) (noting lessor may waive provision requiring written consent to subletting either by accepting benefits of sublease or through subsequent course of conduct).
cited Cited "see" Spindler v. Kushner
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284 , Mileage Realty Co. v. Miami Parking Garage, Inc., Fla.App. 1962, 146 So.2d 403, 406 .
cited Cited "see" Citizens National Bank of St. Petersburg v. Peters
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1965 · signal: see · confidence high
See Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, Fla. 1935, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284 .
cited Cited "see" James Talcott, Inc. v. McDowell
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1962 · signal: see · confidence high
See Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284 ; 18 C.J.S.
cited Cited "see" Florida Power Corp. v. City of Tallahassee
Fla. · 1944 · signal: see · confidence high
See Orlando Orange Grove Co. v. Hales, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284 ; Bennett v. Williams, 149 Fla. 4 , 5 So. (2nd) 51 ; Knabb v. Reconstruction Finance Co., 144 Fla. 110 , 197 So. 707 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." City of Gainesville, Florida D/B/A Gainesville Regional Utilities v. Parkwood Alachua Land Investments, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Fla. Power Corp. v. City of Tallahassee, 18 So. 2d 671, 674 (Fla. 1944) (emphases supplied); see also Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 161 So. 284, 294 (Fla. 1935) (noting that the “main principle” in construing a contract is to deduce the intention of the parties “from consideration of the whole instrument”).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Jennings v. Hayes
Tenn. Ct. App. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284 (1935); Archer v. Commissioner, 312 Ky. 454 , 227 S.W.2d 1001 (1950).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Sawyer v. Hime
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1959 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Orlando Orange Groves Co. v. Hale, 119 Fla. 159 , 161 So. 284, 295 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Frances B. Goulden
v.
Manreka Corporation
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 6, 1935.
161 So. 284
Warlow, Carpenter Fishback, for Appellant; Hugh Akerman, for Appellee.
Brown, Buford, Davis, Ellis, Terrell, Whitfield.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
[*249] Buford, J.

This is an appeal from a final decree dismissing bill of complaint to cancel a tax deed upon the ground that the same is void.

The only question presented for our consideration is: “Is a tax deed executed and dated on October 30, 1933, in form prescribed bj7 law prior to passage of Chapter 14572, Acts of 1929, and omitting the word 'subsequent’ prescribed by the 1929 Act void on its face ?”

The 1929 Act prescribed (See Section 779, R. G. S., 1003 Cumulative Supplement, 1934, page 123) the substantial form of tax deed and prescribed that the deed should contain, amongst other things, substantially the following lanlanguage: “and wherea's said applicant has redeemed (or purchased and surrendered) all other outstanding subsequent tax certificates covering said land, and proper notice having been given as required by law of his application for issue of this deed, and no owner, claimant or other person entitled to redeem said land has appeared to redeem the same;”

The tax deed in this case, as shown by the record, contained the following language: “and whereas said applicant has purchased all other outstanding tax certificates covering said land, and proper notice having been given as' required by law of its application for the issue of this deed, and no owner, claimant, or other person entitled to redeem said land, has appeared to redeem the same;”

The question is, “Does the language used in the deed substantially comply with the form prescribed by statute?” We hold that it does.

The deed recites that the applicant has purchased all other outstanding tax certificates covering said land. This dec-r laration goes further than what is required by statute. The statute only requires that the deed recite that the applicant[*250] has purchased all other outstanding subsequent tax certificates. If it recites that the applicant has purchased all other outstanding tax certificates, then the recitation is paramount to one that the applicant has purchased all outstanding prior and subsequent tax certificates covering the land. So, the decree is without error and should be affirmed.

It is' so ordered.

Affirmed.

Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur. Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.