This writ оf error is to a judgment for the defendants in an action of ejectment to recover the possession of lands in Volusia County, Florida. At the trial the plaintiffs showed a title by conveyance and descent. In support of а plea of not guilty a tax deed dated November 18, 1902, was introduced by the defendants over objections interрosed by the plaintiffs. In rebuttal the plaintiffs introduced the testimony of the Clerk of the Circuit Court “that he had no recоrd in his office as to the issuance or forwarding of any notice of the application for said deed to any one,” but recalled that he had sent a notice of the application for the tax deed to а person in another county whom he was told by the applicant for the tax deed was the agent of the person to whom the land -was 'assessed.
The statute in force when the tax deed was. issued requires notice to bе published by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the application for a tax deed, and after giving the form of the deed, provides that “The clerk shall also mail a copy of said notice of 'application for tax deed to the owner of the lands for which a tax deed is applied for. If the owner is unknown, then such notice shall bе delivered or mailed to the person last paying taxes on said property.”
In -the case of City of Orlandо v. Equitable Building and Loan Association, 45 Fla, 507, text 522,
The provision of the statute above quoted requiring the clerk to mail a copy of the. notice, of application for tax deed to the owner of the land, and if the owner is unknown to deliver or mail such notioe to the person last paying taxes on the property, was intendеd for the benefit of the land owner; and a disregard of the provision when applicable renders the tax deed invalid. See 2 Cooley on Taxation (3rd Ed.) 1034; Black on Tax Titles (2nd Ed.) § 385.
The tax deed recites that the certificate of sale upon which the deed is. based was issued June 7, 1899, but it does not appear by the transcript whether the tax sale certificate was issued to- the State or to a private party, or if it was issued to the State at thе sale, when it was purchased from the State by the defendants or their predecessors in title.
The validity of a tаx sale certificate and the rights of the holder thereof,' other than a governmental-agency of the Stаte, are to- be determined by the laws in force-ad the time the certificate is acquired. A statute subsequently рassed cannot constitutionally impair any ■ of the substantial rights secured to a private holder by the existing laws whеn the certificate was acquired. See Hull v. State,
But a statute enacted after the аcquisition by a private party of a tax sale certificate, requiring a particular and additional- notiсe to be given to the -owner of the land
. A charge directing a verdict for the defendants should never be given unless it is clear that there is nо evidence whatever adduced that could in law support a verdict for the plaintiff. If the evidence is conflicting, or will admit of different reasonable inferences, or if there is evidence tending to prove the issue, it should be submitted to the jury as a question of fact, and not taken from them and passed upon by the judge as a questiоn of law. See German-American Lumber Co. v. Brock,
It does not appear that the person to whom the clerk sent the notice was the owner of the land or even that he was the agent of the owner if that would sufficе; nor does it appear that the person to whom the notice was sent was -the person or the agеnt of the person last paying taxes on the land. There is n0' showing that any other notice of the application for the tax deed was sent to or by any one.
The testimony as to the notice that was given was introduced by the plaintiffs, and it overcame the effect of the prima facie regularity of the proceeding afforded by the deed undеr the statuté. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the defendants to show that the notice required by
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.