Bowden v. Ricker

69 So. 694, 70 Fla. 154
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJuly 13, 1915
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 69 So. 694 (Bowden v. Ricker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bowden v. Ricker, 69 So. 694, 70 Fla. 154 (Fla. 1915).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The bill of complaint herein is as follows: “Wallace G. Bowden, who is a resident and citizen of Duval County, Florida, brings this his bill of complaint in his own behalf and in behalf of other taxpayers of Duval County, Florida, similarly affected, against E. A. Ricker, P. S. Bowen, George H. Brown, J. J. Lord and John H. Patterson, County Commissioners for Duval County, Florida; Frank Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court for Duval County, Florida, and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners for Duval County, Florida, and John W. Rast, Tax Collector for Duval County, Florida, and thereupon complains and says:

1. That the plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the County of Duval and State of Florida, and is now and was at the time of the happening hereafter mentioned the lawful owner of lands and tenements situate in said county, subject to taxation by the State of Florida and County of Duval and whereon the plaintiff from time to time pays lawfully assessed taxes.

[156]*1562. That the defendants, E. A. Ricker, P. S. Bowen, George H. Brown, J. J. Lord and John H. Patterson together compose the Board of County Commissioners of Duval County, Florida; that the defendant Frank Brown is the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Duval County, Florida, and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners, and John W. Rast is Tax Collector for Duval ■County, Florida.

3. That at a regularly convened meeting of said Board of County Commissioners held at their office in Duval Count}? Court House on the eighth day of May, 19x5, the said Board adopted a resolution that the ‘Florida Metropolis’ a newspaper published in the City of Jacksonville in the County of Duval and State of Florida be designated as the paper in which to publish the 1914 delinquent tax list.

4. That at the said meeting the said Board did duly .adopt a further resolution whereby the Clerk of the said Board was directed to notify the defendant Rast that the ‘Florida Metropolis’ aforesaid had been designated as the newspaper in which to publish the 1914 delinquent tax list, and that a copy of the said list be delivered to said ‘Florida Metropolis’ for publication.

5. That thereafter in obedience to the said resolution, defendant Rast did make up and deliver to the publishers of the said ‘Florida Metropolis’ a copy of the ■said list or a part thereof, and that said publishers did forthwith proceed to have said list so furnished by the defendant Rast set up into type and forms for printing and publication in the said newspaper.

6. That the said list consists in great part of arbitrary figures, names and symbols such as are customarily ■used for the description of land, requires great care both [157]*157in the type-setting and in the proof-reading- to avoid errors and mistakes, and that the setting of such matter into type for printing in a newspaper requires the labor of skilled and expert type-setters and consumes a great deal more time than ordinary news composition.

y. That thereafter and subsequent to the setting into type and forms of said matter, on the 15th day of May, 19x5, the defendants Ricker, Lord and Patterson did convene together at the Court House in Duval County, Florida, and agree upon a resolution in the words and figures following, to-wit:

‘Resolved : That the Board’s vote at its last meeting in awarding the publication of the county tax list to the Metropolis be and the same is hereby reconsidered and rescinded.’ And thereafter such proceedings were had and taken by the said Ricker, Lord and Patterson that the said Ricker did declare that by the votes of a majority of the Board, ‘Dixie’ the same being a newspaper published in Duval County, Florida, ‘is designated as the newspaper in which to publish the 1914 delinquent tax list,’ and the said Ricker did thereupon offer the following- resolution and move its adoption, that is to say:

‘Be it resolved that the Clerk of the County Commissioners is directed to notify Tax Collector Rast,’ the same being defendant Rast ‘of Duval County, Florida, that ‘Dixie’ a weekly newspaper published in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, has been designated as the newspaper in which to publish the 1914 delinquent tax list, and that the copy of the said list be delivered to the said ‘Dixie’ for publication.’

And the said resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the said Ricker, Lord and Patterson.

8. Plaintiff says that the said defendants Ricker, Lord and Patterson claim and pretend that their said [158]*158meeting had on the 15th day of May, 1915', was a meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Duval County, Florida, and that the action taken by the said defendants on the said day cancelled and annulled the designation of the.‘Florida Metropolis’ newspaper made on the 8th day of May, 19x5, alleged in the third and fourth paragraphs of this bill of complaint. And plaintiff alleges that by the said designation mentioned in the third paragraph of this bill and the acts in consummation thereof mentioned in the fourth and fifth paragraphs of this bill defendants had lost all jurisdiction with respect to said designation and were powerless to rescind the same.

9. Plaintiff further alleges that the ‘Florida Metropolis’ is a daily newspaper of greater circulation than the ‘Dixie’ newspaper and that there existed no valid reason for any rescission of the action mentioned in the third and fourth paragraphs of this bill.

10. Plaintiff further alleges that the rescission of the resolutions mentioned in the third and fourth paragraphs of this bill will subject the taxpayers of Duval County, Florida, to the expense of compensating the publishers of the ‘Florida Metropolis’ for the labor expended in setting into type and forms the matter mentioned in the fifth paragraph of this bill, and that under the laws of the State of Florida the publication of the list in two newspapers would invalidate the entire sale for taxes for the year 1914 with corresponding loss to the taxpayers of Duval County, Florida.

Wi-ierefore, Plaintiff prays that by a decree of this court said defendants and each of them be enjoined and restrained from any acts in repudiation of the resolution mentioned in the third and fourth paragraphs of this bill and from any interference with the publication in [159]*159the ‘Florida Metropolis’ newspaper of the delinquent tax list for the year 1914 until the further order of the court that by final decree said defendants and each of them may be so enjoined and restrained perpetually. And plaintiff prays process of subpoena and injunction against said defendants in the usual form.”

The following demurrer was filed: “Come now the defendants in the above styled cause, and severally demur to complainant’s bill of complaint because the same is bad in substance.

MATTERS OF LAW TO BE ARGUED.

1st. There is no equity in complainant’s bill of complaint.

2nd. Complainant’s bill makes no showing that the alleged action of the Board of County Commissioners, taken on May 15th, 1915, will bring about any illegal expenditure of the public funds to the injury of complainant as a taxpayer.

3rd. The alleged designation of the Florida Metropolis made on May 8, 1915, did not constitute a contract between the Board of County Commissioners and that newspaper, nor did such designation create any obligation upon which the County of Duval could be held liable.

4th.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jones v. Chiles
654 So. 2d 1281 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Ago
Florida Attorney General Reports, 1981
Wood v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange
279 So. 2d 506 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1973)
State v. Florida State Improvement Commission
31 So. 2d 548 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1947)
Gessner v. Del-Air Corporation
17 So. 2d 522 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1944)
Davis v. Keen
192 So. 200 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
State Ex Rel. Himes v. Culbreath
174 So. 422 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
White v. Crandon
156 So. 303 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1934)
Thursby v. Stewart
137 So. 7 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)
State Ex Rel. Landis v. Wheat
137 So. 277 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)
United States v. Butler
49 F.2d 52 (Fifth Circuit, 1931)
Amos v. Mathews
126 So. 308 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
Wilton v. County St. Johns
123 So. 527 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1929)
Jackson Lumber Co. v. Walton County
116 So. 771 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1928)
Stephens v. Futch
74 So. 805 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1917)
Sparkman v. State ex rel. Bank of Ybor City
71 So. 34 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
69 So. 694, 70 Fla. 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowden-v-ricker-fla-1915.