State v. Covington

Supreme Court of Florida

State v. Covington

3 So. 2d 521, 148 Fla. 42

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedAugust 1, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 3 So. 2d 521 (State v. Covington) 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. Covington, 3 So. 2d 521, 148 Fla. 42 (Fla. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It appears that the Baldwin Drainage District was attempted to be established under the statutes and has for many years been operating and recognized by the statutes as having at least a de facto existence with jurisdiction and powers, pursuant to which contractual and other rights have been acquired and not fully discharged; therefore a writ in quo warranto challenging the existence of the district and the *43 authority of its officers will not now be issued. If individual co-relators are entitled to relief upon the. ground that their lands in the district have not been and cannot be in any way benefited by being included in the drainage district, and taxation of such unbenefitted lands violates organic property rights which have not been lost by acquiescence or otherwise, the allegations of the information are insufficient even if the relief can properly be obtained by quo warranto proceedings.

Writ denied.

Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Terrell, Chapman, Thomas and Adams, J. J., concur. Buford, J., disqualified.

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

Per Curiam.

It appears that the Baldwin Drainage District was attempted to be established under the statutes and has for many years been operating and recognized by the statutes as having at least a de facto existence with jurisdiction and powers, pursuant to which contractual and other rights have been acquired and not fully discharged; therefore a writ in quo warranto challenging the existence of the district and the *43 authority of its officers will not now be issued. If individual co-relators are entitled to relief upon the. ground that their lands in the district have not been and cannot be in any way benefited by being included in the drainage district, and taxation of such unbenefitted lands violates organic property rights which have not been lost by acquiescence or otherwise, the allegations of the information are insufficient even if the relief can properly be obtained by quo warranto proceedings.

Writ denied.

Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Terrell, Chapman, Thomas and Adams, J. J., concur. Buford, J., disqualified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 So. 2d 521, 148 Fla. 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-covington-fla-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack