State v. City of Pensacola

166 So. 851, 123 Fla. 331, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 979
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedMarch 26, 1936
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 166 So. 851 (State v. City of Pensacola) 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
State v. City of Pensacola, 166 So. 851, 123 Fla. 331, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 979 (Fla. 1936).

Opinions

Davis, J.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of Escambia County validating the issuance of $522,-000.00 proposed refunding bonds, issue of 1935, as authorized by the Florida General Refunding Act, Chapter 15772, Acts 1931, Laws of Florida, and Amended Section 6 of Article IX of the State Constitution. The bonds in question are designed to evidence an extension or renewal, in a new form, of the original existing indebtedness of the obligor municipality, which indebtedness is provided not to be extinguished, but merged into the proposed refunding bonds, with like force and effect as if the original bonded indebtedness had remained unrefunded by the issuance of such refunding bonds.

In validating the bonds, the Circuit Court, in its decree of validation, affirmatively found, determined and held that inasmuch as the proposed refunding bonds are to be mere extensions and renewals of the original bonds for which they are proposed to be exchanged by the City of Pensacola, that such refunding bonds are not, and will not be, affected by the provisions of Chapter 16965, Acts 1935, nor by any other statute of the State of Florida which, if applied to *333 the obligation of the bonds refunded, would constitute an impairment of the obligation of such last mentioned bonds.

The Circuit Court further held, in effect, that taxes re-pledged as security for the refunding bonds, should continue to be levied and collected upon the same classes of property, and in the same manner, as taxes would be required to be levied and collected to pay the original indebtedness, and that in all respects the refunding bonds were to be subject to the same provisions of law for their security and for their payment, as were the bonds for which they are to be exchanged in the course of the City’s refunding program, the refunding bonds herein held to be mere renewals of the bonds refunded and therefore amounting to the same sort of legal obligation.

The very definite decision of this Court in the recent Marion County Refunding Bond case (Folks v. Marion County, 121 Fla. 17, 163 Sou. Rep. 298) is authority for the proposition that where refunding bonds are proposed to be merely issued and exchanged by the obligor for outstanding bonds may thereby be extended, that the obligation of the refunding bonds can lawfully be made a continuation of the legal obligation of the outstanding bonds refunded, since the refunding bonds in such an instance will be construed as mere renewals of the existing bonds on the same terms as to security, thereby carrying forward the identical obligation of the originals, unless otherwise provided by the refunding bond provisions, or by the statutes under which the refunding bonds are authorized. Compare: Boatright v. City of Jacksonville, 117 Fla. 477, 158 Sou. Rep. 42. See also: State v. Sarasota County, 118 Fla. 629, 159 Sou. Rep. 797; State, ex rel. Woman’s Benefit Ass’n, v. Port of Palm Beach District, 121 Fla. 746, 164 Sou. Rep. 851; State, ex rel. Sovereign Camp W. O. W., v. Boring, 121 Fla. 781, *334 164 Sou. 859; Fleming v. Turner, 122 Fla. 200, 165 Sou. Rep. 353.

The authorizing resolution of the City of Pensacola upon the authority of which the refunding bonds involved in this case are to be issued, is as follows:

“A Resolution
“To Be Entitled':
“A Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of $522,000.00 4)4 Per Cent. Refunding Bonds of 1935.
“Be It Resolved by the City of Pensacola :
“Section 1. The City Council has ascertained and determined and does hereby declare that:
“(a) Under date of January 1, 1906, the City of Pensacola duly issued $650,000.00 4)4% Improvement Bonds, all thereof maturing on January 1, 1936.
“(b) Under date of January 1, 1911, the City of Pensacola duly issued $250,000.00 4)4% Improvement Bonds, all thereof maturing on January 1, 1941.
“(c) Under date of October 1, 1911, the City of Pensacola duly issued $250,000.00 4)4% Refunding Bonds', all thereof maturing on October 1, 1941.
“(d) Pursuant to the provisions of the General Refunding Act of 1931, being Chapter 15772, General Laws of Florida, 1931, and resolutions duly adopted by the City Council on May 7, 1934, August 15, 1934, September 5, 1934, and October 17, 1934, the City of Pensacola duly issued prior to November 6, 1934, $548,000.00 4)4% Refunding Bonds, dated July 1, 1934; $445,000.00 of said 4)4% Refunding Bonds mature annually, July 1, $50,000.00, 1935; $47,000.00, 1936; $52,000.00, 1937; $52,000.00, 1938; $49,000.00, 1939; $51,000.00, 1940; $52,000.00, 1941; *335 $22,000.00, 1942; $2,000.00, 1943; $26,000.00, 1944; $9,-000.00, 1945; $7,000.00, 1946, and $26,000.00; 1947, and were issued in exchange for and upon the surrender and cancellation of a like amount of the Improvement Bonds described in paragraph (a) of this section; and the remaining $103,000.00 of said 4Refunding Bonds mature annually, July 1, $26,000.00, 1947; $37,000.00, 1948; $3,-000.00, 1949; $8,000.00, 1950; $2,000.00, 1951; $21,000.00, 1952; $1,000.00, 1953, and $5,000.00, 1955, and were issued in exchange for and upon the surrender and cancellation of $73,000.00 of the Improvement Bnods described in paragraph (b) of this section, and $30,000.00 of the Refunding Bonds described in paragraph (c) of this' section.
“(e) $80,000.00 of the Improvement Bonds described in paragraph (a) of this section were held in the sinking fund of the City for said issue of Improvement Bonds and have been cancelled and extinguished as obligations of the City.
“(f) The remaining $125,000.00 Improvement Bonds described in paragraph (a) of this section, the remaining $177,000.00 Improvement Bonds described in paragraph (b) of this section, and the remaining $220,000.00 Refunding Bonds described in paragraph (c) of this section are outstanding and unpaid and constitute valid bonded indebtedness of the City of Pensacola, and it would be a hardship and a burden upon the taxpayers of the City to levy taxes sufficient to provide for their payment at their several maturities, and it is for the best interest of the City and its inhabitants to extend the time of payment of said bonds by refunding the same.
“Section 2. Under the authority of the General Refunding Act of 1931, being Chapter 15772, General Laws of Florida, 1931, passed by. the Legislature of Florida at its *336 Second Extraordinary Session in July, 1931, and approved by the Governor on July 29, 1931, there be issued the negotiable coupon bonds of the City of Pensacola in the aggregate amount of $522,000.00, consisting of 522 bonds of $1,000.00 each; numbered 1 to 522, inclusive, designated ‘4Refunding Bonds of 1935.’
“Section 3. Said 4Refunding Bonds of 1935 shall be dated July 1, 1935, shall bear interest at the rate of 4}4

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

Related

State v. City of Fort Pierce
19 So. 2d 468 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1944)
State v. South Lake County Special Road & Bridge District
198 So. 832 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1940)
State v. City of Auburndale
197 So. 739 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1940)
State v. City of Delray Beach
191 So. 188 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
City of Miami v. State
190 So. 774 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Marden v. the Elks Club
190 So. 40 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
State v. City of Haines City
188 So. 831 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
State Ex Rel. Harrington v. City of Pompano
188 So. 610 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
State v. Counties of St. Lucie, Okeechobee
183 So. 846 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
City of Winter Haven v. A. M. Klemm & Son
181 So. 153 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
Fleming v. Fleming
177 So. 607 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
Yowell v. Rogers, Et Ux.
175 So. 772 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
State v. Town of Holly Hill
174 So. 818 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
State v. City of Sanford
174 So. 339 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
State v. City of St. Petersburg
173 So. 434 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
State v. City of West Palm Beach
174 So. 334 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
State v. City of Orlando
170 So. 887 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
State v. City of Clearwater
169 So. 602 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
166 So. 851, 123 Fla. 331, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-city-of-pensacola-fla-1936.