City of Tampa v. Salomonson

35 Fla. 446
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJanuary 15, 1895
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 35 Fla. 446 (City of Tampa v. Salomonson) 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
City of Tampa v. Salomonson, 35 Fla. 446 (Fla. 1895).

Opinion

Taylor, J.:

Frederick A. Salomonson, the appellee, upon a bill in equity in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough county, obtained a temporary injunction against the city of Tampa, a municipal corporation, the appellant, restraining it from issuing, pledging or selling $350,000 of its city bonds, and from this order the city appeals.

The bill, omitting its formal parts, is as follows: “That complainant is a resident and citizen of the said city of Tampa, and is the owner of valuable property, both real and personal, situate, lying and being within the corporate limits of the said city of Tampa, and that said property is subject to taxation by the said city and the authorized officers thereof; that the city council of the said city has recently, to-wit: on the 8th day of June, A. D. 1894, attempted by an ordinance to authorize and provide for the issuing by the [464]*464said city of Tampa of municipal bonds of the said city to the amount of three hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($350,000), to bear interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum, and to create a board of trustees, consisting of the following named persons, to-wit: T. C. Taliaferro, S. M. Sparkman, J. A. H. Grable, Edward Manrara, and the fifth trustee to be supplied by those already named, to receive and sell the said bonds,, and to receive the money arising from such sale, and giving said trustees power and authority to expend the-money arising from the sale of said bonds; and said ordinance having various other provisions therein, as will more fully appear by reference to said ordinance numbered 116, a true copy of which is hereto attached, marked ‘exhibit A, ’ and made a part of this bill of' complaint, to which your orator prays reference as often as may be necessary. That said bonds so provided for as aforesaid, are to run for a period of twenty years, and the interest thereon is to be paid semi-annually, and after the expiration of ten years-the city council of the said city of Tampa is to have the option or privilege of redeeming said indebtedness or any portion thereof, commencing with the lowest numbered bonds, both the principal and interest of' said bonds to be payable in gold coin of the United States of current date and time,. That if the said bonds are issued, as threatened, they will become a debt against the said city of Tampa, for the payment of w'hich, both the principal and interest, your orator’s-property situate within the corporate limits of the said city of Tampa will be yearly subject to taxation, and said property will be assessed and taxed as aforesaid; that by reason thereof your orator’s property will depreciate in value; that the taxes so levied will become-an apparent incumbrance,, lien and cloud, upon the-[465]*465title; that he will be subjected to a multiplicity of actions for the protection of his property, and that he will be greatly injured and embarrassed in the use and enjoyment of his property, and will be put to much expense in protecting his constitutional and legal rights. Your orator further showeth that the officers of the said city of Tampa and the trustees in said ordinance named, or a majority of them, propose and. intend to issue and sell the said bonds at as early a, date as possible, and will do so unless they are restrained and enjoined from so doing by the- order of this court. Your orator further represents that by virtue of the power granted to the city of Tampa by an act of the Legislature of the State of Florida, of the session of 1887, the same being Chapter 5779, the said city of Tampa pretends to have authority to issue said bonds and to pass the ordinance hereinbefore referred to, a true copy of which is hereto attached and marked ‘exhibit A,’ and by virtue of said authority the said city of Tampa called the election particularly described and mentioned in said exhibit A, and the said defendant city claims that at the election so called and held on the 14th day of July, A. D. 1894, a majority of the votes cast by the qualified electors of said city approved the issuance of said bonds.. Your orator further represents that the said election so held on the 14th day of July, A. D. 1894, was totally illegal and void, and that the ordinance numbered 116 authorizing and calling the said election, a true copy of which is hereto attached, marked ‘exhibit A’ as aforesaid, was absolutely void for the reason that if the said bonds are issued and sold under and by virtue of said ordinance and said election, the funds arising from the sale thereof will be unlawfully diverted from their [466]*466proper and legal channel, and the same will be taken charge of, spent and used by a body of men so-called trustees, who have not and can have no legal authority •or right to take possession of said bonds, or to receive •or control the same, or to sell and dispose of the same, •or to expend the proceeds arising from the sale of said bonds, or any part thereof, although said ordinance ¡undertakes and attempts to confer such authority and power upon the said trustees so-called, it being expressly provided by the laws of this State, in Chapter 3951 thereof, passed by the Legislature at the session •of 1889, which is hereby referred to and made a part <of this bill, that in addition to the offices authorized by the charter of the city of Tampa there shall be a board of public works, which said board of public works was constituted and established by said Chapter, which further provided that the same should consist of three members who shall be freeholders in the city of Tampa and electors thereof; that the said board of public works shall have exclusive power and control over the construction of sewers, the building and ¡¡repairing of bridges, and the grading and paving of streets, and of certain other matters therein particularly described and enumerated; that all money levied •or raised for such purposes from taxes, bonds or other sources shall be collected and carried to the credit of said board of public works, and shall not be diverted from said board or be used by the mayor and city council for any other purpose, but the same shall remain as a separate fund in the hands of the treasurer ■of the said city of Tampa, and the bond of the treasurer shall be sufficient to recover any amount of the public money which may come into his hands; that said act is still in full force and effect, never having been repealed either expressly or by Implication, and [467]*467'the board of trustees provided for in said ordinance is unauthorized and illegal, and neither the said trustees, nor any of them, nor their successors in office, have any legal right to receive the said bonds, to sell the same, or to dispose of the proceeds, to receive any money arising from the sale thereof, to deposit the same in any bank or banks, to expend the same or any part thereof, or to contract for or provide for a system of sewerage in the said city of Tampa.” The prayers of the bill are, first, that the defendant city, its officers, etc., be restrained and enjoined from issuing, selling, delivering, pledging or otherwise disposing of any of said bonds; second, for a temporary injunction restraining the same acts until the further order of the •court; third, a prayer for general relief, and for subpoena.

The city ordinance complained of in said bill and .attached thereto as part thereof is as follows:

“ordinance no. 116.

An ordinance to provide for the issuing of bonds of the city of Tampa, and for the creation of a board of trustees, and for the disbursing of funds received from ’the sale of said bonds.

Be it Ordained by the City Council of the City of Tampa:

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

Related

Lysaght v. City of New Smyrna Beach
159 So. 2d 869 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1964)
Adams v. Saunders
191 So. 312 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Olds v. Alvord
183 So. 711 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
West v. Town of Lake Placid
120 So. 361 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1929)
Phillips v. Bell
94 So. 699 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1922)
Prairie Pebble Phosphate Co. v. Silverman
86 So. 508 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1920)
Town of Afton v. Gill
1916 OK 393 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
L'Engle v. Holmes
61 So. 320 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1913)
Suburban Investment Co. v. Hyde
61 Fla. 809 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1911)
Harper v. Galloway
58 Fla. 255 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1909)
State ex rel. Ellis v. Tampa Water Works Co.
57 Fla. 533 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1909)
State v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
56 Fla. 617 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1908)
Hayes v. Walker
54 Fla. 163 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1907)
City of Bowling Green v. Gaines
96 S.W. 852 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1906)
Givens v. County of Hillsborough
46 Fla. 502 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1903)
Hillsborough County v. Henderson
45 Fla. 356 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1903)
Middleton v. City of St. Augustine
42 Fla. 287 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1900)
Chamberlain v. City of Tampa
40 Fla. 74 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1898)
City of Tampa v. Kaunitz
39 Fla. 683 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1897)
State ex rel. Attorney-General v. Green
36 Fla. 154 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 Fla. 446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-tampa-v-salomonson-fla-1895.