Taylor v. State ex rel. Miller

74 So. 875, 73 Fla. 601
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedMarch 8, 1917
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 74 So. 875 (Taylor v. State ex rel. Miller) 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
Taylor v. State ex rel. Miller, 74 So. 875, 73 Fla. 601 (Fla. 1917).

Opinion

Whitfield, J.

At the instance of resident citizens and tax payers who were relators an alternative writ of mandamus was issued by the Circuit Judge commanding the County Commissioners of Pinellas County tq meet and receive a petition praying for a change of the county site of the county “and act upon the same, and call an election for the purpose of -.choosing and locating the permanent county site of said county, and that said election be called and held as required by law,” or to show cause for not doing so. The respondents filed the following return:

“1. Tfiat the permanent County site of Pinellas County was located, and intended both by the Legislature and by the voters of Pinellas County .to be located, at Clearwater in pursuance of the election held on the second Tuesday in November, A. D. 1911, under the [603]*603provisions of Section 21 of Chapter 6247, Acts of 1911, creating Pinellas County, and the said Chapter 6247 would not have been accepted by the voters of Pinellas County, or the said election carried, unless upon the consideration that Clearwater should be the permanent County site of said County, all of which was well known to the relators and to the. citizens and voters of Pinellas County, and it was agreed by common consent of the citizens and voters of Pinellas County, including the relators,-that Clearwater should be the permanent County site of the said county for the purpose of carrying the said election, and in order to carry such election, and, without such agreement the said election could not have been carried.

“2. These respondents deny that no permanent court-house, jail, or other permanent county building has been erected in Pinellas County since the same was created, and aver that the present County site is located at Clearwater, and Clearwáter is a city located*on two lines of railroad transportation, to-wit, the Atlantic Coast Line and the Tampa and Gulf Coast Railroad, and a new and substantial court-house of wood, including the necessary county offices, was constructed at Clearwater, in the year 1912, at a cost of several thousand dollars, which ever since has been, and now is, the Sburt-house of said county; that in a former proceeding brought against the predecessors of these respondents it was determined and decided by the Supreme Court of Florida, in the case of State ex rel., versus S. S. Coachman, et al., as County Commissioners of Pinellas County, officially reported in Volume 64 of the Florida Reports, at page 478, that the provisions of Chapter 6239 Laws of Florida, Acts of 1911, applied to Pinellas County, and under the provisions of said Act these respondents are without power or [604]*604authority to call an election to change the location of said County site prior to the year 1932, wherefore they declined and refused to entertain or consider the petition of the relators, or pass upon the sufficiency thereof to require them to call an election as therein prayejd.”

This return was sustained on demurrer and motion, to quash. A demurrer' to the following replication was overruled;

“3. And for a third replication to the said return of the respondents herein, the relators say that the effect of Chapter 6247 of the Laws of Florida, and of the election held thereunder on the second Tuesday in November, 1911, as alleged, in said return, was to establish at Clearwater a temporary county-site only, for Pinellas County,, and that there has not been constructed in Pinellas County any permanent court house or any court house intended by the County Commissioners of Pinellas County to be a permanent court house for said County; that the building or structure which was at the time of the filing of the petition for election, as alleged in the petition for an alternative writ herein, being used and occupied by the County Commissioners and other officials of said County as temporary quarters for the transaction of the official business of said County of Pinellas, is a cheap, wooden building inadequate and insufficient 'for the use of the officials of said County in the transaction of the official business of said County which said building never was, at the time of the erection thereof nor since, considered or treated by the County Commissioners of said County as a permanent court house for said County, and which said building was not, when constructed, upon land belonging to the said County of Pinellas, but that the said building was constructed as a subterfuge and with the fraudulent intent and purpose on [605]*605the part of the County Commissioners of said County, of avoiding an election for a change in the location of the county site, at which .time of the erection of the said structure a petition was pending before the Board of County Commissioners of said County of Pinellas praying for an election for a change of the location of the county-site of said Pinellas County; that since the erection of the said structure now so occupied by the said County Commissioners and other officials of said County as temporary quarters for the transaction of their official business an election has been called and held by the County Commissioners of said County and a bond issue voted for the purpose of raising funds with which to purchase a county-site for said County and the construction of a court house and jail, and that such bonds have been by the said Board of County Commissioners sold and funds raised which are now in the possession or at the command of the Board of County Commissioners of said County with which to construct, and which funds are by the said Board of County Commissioners held for the purpose of constructing a substantial court house and jail for said County, and it is the intention of the said Board of County Commissioners of said County to erect a new, adequate and permanent court house for said County of Pinellas with such funds as soon as the question of the location of a permanent county-site shall be legally determined.”

The following rejoinder was filed:

“That it is untrue that there has not been constructed in Pinellas County any permanent Court House or any Court House intended by the County Commissioners to be a permanent Court House for said County, and [606]

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

Related

Gulf View Apartments, Inc. v. City of Venice
145 So. 842 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 So. 875, 73 Fla. 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-state-ex-rel-miller-fla-1917.