Ives v. Columbia County

109 So. 235, 92 Fla. 30
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJune 26, 1926
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 109 So. 235 (Ives v. Columbia County) 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
Ives v. Columbia County, 109 So. 235, 92 Fla. 30 (Fla. 1926).

Opinions

Petition was filed in the Circuit Court of Columbia County, Florida, for the purpose of testing the validity of bond issue in the sum of $500,000.00, being issued by the County Commissioners of said county and under the provision of Chapter 11459, Laws of Florida, an enactment by the Special Session of Legislature of 1925, approved the 24th day of November, 1925.

Notice was published as such case required and a taxpayer, F. H. Ives, was by order of Court allowed to intervene and thereupon the tax payer filed an answer as follows, to-wit:

"The answer of F. H. Ives, a tax payer and citizen of Columbia County, Florida, to the bill of complaint of Columbia County, Florida, a county organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, complainant.

This defendant, reserving to himself the right of exception to the bill of complaint, for answer thereto, says:

That on the 30th day of March, 1926, the complainant filed its petition herein under and by virtue of Sections 3296 *Page 32 and 3297, General Revised Statutes of Florida, 1920, seeking the validation and confirmation of certain bonds mentioned therein, which bonds were issued in accordance with Chapter 11495, Laws of Florida, Special Session 1925, by the resolution of the County Commissioners of said County on the 2nd day of March, 1926, as appears by Exhibit No. 9, attached to said petition or bill of complaint, and that on the 30th day of March, 1926, the Judge of said Court filed said petition and issued an order directed to the State of Florida, and that on the same day the Clerk of this Court, pursuant to Section 3297, Revised General Statutes of Florida, 1920, issued a notice to the tax payers and citizens of Columbia County, Florida, aforesaid, notifying the tax payers and citizens of said county that such petition had been filed and presented, praying for the validation and confirmation of certain road bonds proposed to be issued by said county in the sum of Five Hundred Thousand ($500,000.00) Dollars, claiming that such bonds had been authorized to be issued by such Chapter, aforesaid, and such notice has been published according to law, and this defendant in reponse to said notice, and by leave of the court had and obtained answers and says:

(1)
That he is a tax payer and citizen of the County of Columbia, that he now intervenes in said matter, and says that the County Commissioners in and by the resolution before mentioned, adopted on the 2nd day of March, 1926, provided in said resolution as follows, to-wit:

'On in the event that the said gasoline tax shall prove inadequate in whole or in part to pay the interest on the said bonds or to create a sinking fund for the payment of the principal thereof at maturity.'

And that such resolution of such County Commissioners included therein the following words, to-wit: *Page 33

'And to meet any inadequacies or insufficiency in the amount received from the said gasoline tax for the said purposes.'

And this intervenor says that the inclusion of such words above are not authorized by Chapter 11459, Laws of Florida, Special Session 1925, and that the proceedings and the resolution aforesaid of the County Commissioners, including such words relative to the issuance of said bonds an illegal and invalid, because of the presence of such words in such resolution, and that the County Commissioners of such County and the County of Columbia, aforesaid, should be enjoined from issuing the bonds sought to be issued in said resolution under such act of Legislature, aforesaid, because such resolution contains such unauthorized and illegal words.

(2)
And this intervenor further answering says, that the resolution mentioned above and all of the proceedings had and taken under and by virtue of such act are legal, except the inclusion of the words above quoted, and this intervening tax payer and citizen of said county prays that the County of Columbia be enjoined from issuing the bonds mentioned in the petition because of the use of such unauthorized words in such resolution."

Motion to strike the answer was interposed as follows:

"Now comes the complainant above, by its Solicitors undersigned, and moves the court to strike from the answer of F. H. Ives, a tax payer and citizen of Columbia County, who has intervened and filed an answer under the laws of Florida, paragraph one of said answer, upon the following grounds, to-wit:

(1)
That Chapter 11459, Laws of Florida, Special Session. 1925, relative to the issuance of road bonds by Columbia County, Florida, authorizes the issuance of such bonds *Page 34 under the terms of the resolution adopted by the County Commissioners of the said County on the 2nd day of March, 1926, and authorizes the use of the words objected to in such paragraph of such answer.

(2)
That such act plainly contemplates that in the event that the gasoline tax mentioned therein should prove inadequate in whole or in part to pay the interest on said bonds, or to create the sinking fund mentioned therein, that a tax should be levied annually upon all the taxable property in said county subject to taxation for county purposes, for a sufficient sum to pay the interest on said bonds, and to meet the amounts annually required to create a sinking fund and to meet any inadequacies or insufficiency in the amount received from the gas tax to meet said purposes.

(3)
That under the terms and provisions of the act mentioned in said paragraph of said answer and in the petition herein, it is necessary that the words objected to by such answer be used in the issuance of said bonds in order that the holders of such bonds might be protected."

This motion was granted and default was entered against all tax payers except Ives.

Decree Pro Confesso was entered as follows:

"This cause came on this day to be heard upon the motion of Columbia County, Florida, a county organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Florida, complainant, for a Decree Pro Confesso against the citizens and tax payers of said county, except F. H. Ives, a citizen and tax payer of said county, who has filed an answer herein, and portions of which answer have been stricken upon motion, all of whom have failed to sufficiently answer or demur to the petitioner's petition herein on the 24th day of April, 1926, or to sufficiently show cause why the bonds mentioned in said petition should not *Page 35 be validated and confirmed, and it appearing that an order has been made and notice duly given and published, as is provided by Section 3297, Revised General Statutes of Florida, 1920, and that there has been a default upon the part of all of the tax payers and citizens of said Columbia County, Florida, aforesaid, except F. H. Ives, portions of whose answer herein has been stricken, and all of the tax payers and citizens of said Columbia County, Florida, except as above, have failed to sufficiently plead, answer, or demur to the petition filed in said cause, or to show cause or reason why the prayer of said petition should not be granted, as appears by the files of said cause herein and now before the court.

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

Related

State v. City of Sanford
174 So. 339 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
Jackson Lumber Co. v. Walton County
116 So. 771 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
109 So. 235, 92 Fla. 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ives-v-columbia-county-fla-1926.