Riverside Park Co. v. City of Titusville

Supreme Court of Florida

Riverside Park Co. v. City of Titusville

151 So. 382, 113 Fla. 207

DecidedDecember 8, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 151 So. 382 (Riverside Park Co. v. City of Titusville) 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

Riverside Park Co. v. City of Titusville, 151 So. 382, 113 Fla. 207 (Fla. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this case the appeal is from an order overruling general and special demurrers to a bill of complaint exhibited by the City of Titusville in the Circuit Court to enforce its alleged lien created by improvement certificates issued against property upon which assessments had been levied to pay the costs of such improvements under the provisions of Chapter 9298, Acts of 1923, now appearing as Sections 3022, et seq., C. G. L., 1927, in connection with Section 5 of Chapter 14434, Special Acts of 1929.

It is contended that the provisions of these Acts violate *208 Section 12 of the Declaration of Rights and Section 3 of Article IX of the Constitution and Section 29 of Article XVI of the Constitution of Florida, and violates Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.

The briefs in this case were filed on November 12th and November 30, 1932, respectively. Since that time this Court has had occasion often to consider the questions here presented and these questions have been determined adversely to the contention of the appellant. See Davant v. City of Brooksville, 107 Fla. 292, 144 Sou. 666; Sawyer et al. v. Town of Mt. Dora, 108 Fla. 456, 148 Sou. 209 and cases there cited.

The questions also, to a certain extent, are treated in the opinion of the case of Summerland, Inc., v. City of Punta Gorda, 101 Fla. 543, 134 Sou. 611.

We can see no good purpose to be served by repeating what has heretofore been said concerning the validity of the statutes involved inasmuch as Section 5 of Chapter 14434 contains nothing which should impel it to be held invalid in the light of the decisions holding the provisions of Chapter 9298, Acts of 1925, to be valid.

Therefore, the order appealed from should' be affirmed and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Brown, J., not participating because of illness.

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

Per Curiam.

In this case the appeal is from an order overruling general and special demurrers to a bill of complaint exhibited by the City of Titusville in the Circuit Court to enforce its alleged lien created by improvement certificates issued against property upon which assessments had been levied to pay the costs of such improvements under the provisions of Chapter 9298, Acts of 1923, now appearing as Sections 3022, et seq., C. G. L., 1927, in connection with Section 5 of Chapter 14434, Special Acts of 1929.

It is contended that the provisions of these Acts violate *208 Section 12 of the Declaration of Rights and Section 3 of Article IX of the Constitution and Section 29 of Article XVI of the Constitution of Florida, and violates Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.

The briefs in this case were filed on November 12th and November 30, 1932, respectively. Since that time this Court has had occasion often to consider the questions here presented and these questions have been determined adversely to the contention of the appellant. See Davant v. City of Brooksville, 107 Fla. 292, 144 Sou. 666; Sawyer et al. v. Town of Mt. Dora, 108 Fla. 456, 148 Sou. 209 and cases there cited.

The questions also, to a certain extent, are treated in the opinion of the case of Summerland, Inc., v. City of Punta Gorda, 101 Fla. 543, 134 Sou. 611.

We can see no good purpose to be served by repeating what has heretofore been said concerning the validity of the statutes involved inasmuch as Section 5 of Chapter 14434 contains nothing which should impel it to be held invalid in the light of the decisions holding the provisions of Chapter 9298, Acts of 1925, to be valid.

Therefore, the order appealed from should' be affirmed and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Brown, J., not participating because of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 So. 382, 113 Fla. 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riverside-park-co-v-city-of-titusville-fla-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack