Meredith v. City of Winter Haven

141 F.2d 1019, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3850
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Meredith v. City of Winter Haven. Read the opinion of the Court — 134 F.2d 202
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided April 22, 1944·No. No. 10402·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

As ground for a rehearing the case of State v. Pinellas County, 143 Fla. 557, 197 So. 127, is particularly pressed upon us. In that case the bonds to be refunded had “deferred interest coupons”, which were not provided for in the new series about to be validated. It is true the court held the deferred interest coupons would not thereafter be collectible, but the reason given is not that they were originally and totally void, but that the bonds which bore them had been duly called under a provision for calling them “at par and the accrued interest at the rate then prevailing as en-[1020]*1020forcible and collectible.” No part of the deferred interest was payable on the call, as in our case. We remain convinced that our conclusion is according to law and justice.

Petition for rehearing denied.

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

Meredith v. City of Winter Haven, 141 F.2d 1019, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3850 (5th Cir. 1944).

141 F.2d 1019 (Meredith v. City of Winter Haven) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Spec. Tax School Dist. No. 3, Pinellas Cty.
197 So. 127 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1940)