State v. City of St. Augustine

Supreme Court of Florida

State v. City of St. Augustine

169 So. 648, 125 Fla. 173, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 1254

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedAugust 11, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 169 So. 648 (State v. City of St. Augustine) 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 St. Augustine, 169 So. 648, 125 Fla. 173, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 1254 (Fla. 1936).

Pincite

Opinions

This appeal is from a decree validating $113,000.00 of Water Revenue Certificates to be issued by the City of St. Augustine, Florida, without an approving vote of the freeholder electors of the City as required by Section 6, Article IX, of the Constitution of Florida, as amended in 1930, when bonds of the City are issued.

The proceeds to be derived from a sale of the Water Revenue Certificates are to be used for the necessary preservation and improvement and for necessary additions to the existing Waterworks System of the City.

The Water Revenue Certificates are to be paid solely from the revenue derived from the operation of the said waterworks system and not otherwise.

The decree validating the issue of $113,000.00 Water Revenue Certificates to be issued by the City of St. Augustine for necessary improvements and additions to the existing waterworks system of the city without an approving vote of the freeholder electors of the City, is supported by the pleadings and evidence adduced in the court below, and the issue of such certificates not being in violation of Section 6, Article IX, of the Constitution, and being otherwise authorized by law, such decree should be affirmed on the authority of State, et al., v. City of Miami, 113 Fla. 280, 152 So. 6; State v. City of Daytona Beach,118 Fla. 29, 158 So. 200; Wilson v. City of Bartow, 124 Fla. 356,168 So. 545; Boykin v. Town of River Junction; Kathleen Citrus *Page 175 Land Company v. City of Lakeland; State, ex rel. City of Vero Beach, v. MacConnell, No. One; Williams v. Town of Dunnellon; Bradley v. City of Homestead; decided at this term, and other like cases recently decided.

Affirmed.

WHITFIELD, C.J., and TERRELL, BUFORD and DAVIS, J.J., concur.

ELLIS, P.J., concurs upon the principle announced in his specially concurring opinion in the case of State, ex rel. City of Vero Beach, v. MacConnell, filed August 3, 1936.

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

This appeal is from a decree validating $113,000.00 of Water Revenue Certificates to be issued by the City of St. Augustine, Florida, without an approving vote of the freeholder electors of the City as required by Section 6, Article IX, of the Constitution of Florida, as amended in 1930, when bonds of the City are issued.

The proceeds to be derived from a sale of the Water Revenue Certificates are to be used for the necessary preservation and improvement and for necessary additions to the existing Waterworks System of the City.

The Water Revenue Certificates are to be paid solely from the revenue derived from the operation of the said waterworks system and not otherwise.

The decree validating the issue of $113,000.00 Water Revenue Certificates to be issued by the City of St. Augustine for necessary improvements and additions to the existing waterworks system of the city without an approving vote of the freeholder electors of the City, is supported by the pleadings and evidence adduced in the court below, and the issue of such certificates not being in violation of Section 6, Article IX, of the Constitution, and being otherwise authorized by law, such decree should be affirmed on the authority of State, et al., v. City of Miami, 113 Fla. 280, 152 So. 6; State v. City of Daytona Beach,118 Fla. 29, 158 So. 200; Wilson v. City of Bartow, 124 Fla. 356,168 So. 545; Boykin v. Town of River Junction; Kathleen Citrus *Page 175 Land Company v. City of Lakeland; State, ex rel. City of Vero Beach, v. MacConnell, No. One; Williams v. Town of Dunnellon; Bradley v. City of Homestead; decided at this term, and other like cases recently decided.

Affirmed.

WHITFIELD, C.J., and TERRELL, BUFORD and DAVIS, J.J., concur.

ELLIS, P.J., concurs upon the principle announced in his specially concurring opinion in the case of State, ex rel. City of Vero Beach, v. MacConnell, filed August 3, 1936.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 So. 648, 125 Fla. 173, 1936 Fla. LEXIS 1254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-city-of-st-augustine-fla-1936.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack