Taylor v. Tennessee & Florida Land & Investment Co.

72 So. 206, 71 Fla. 651
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedMay 31, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 72 So. 206 (Taylor v. Tennessee & Florida Land & Investment Co.) 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. Tennessee & Florida Land & Investment Co., 72 So. 206, 71 Fla. 651 (Fla. 1916).

Opinion

Whitfield, J,

The appellee’s bill of complaint alleges in effect that it is the owner of lands described as the N. ½ of S. E. ¼ 10, 31 S., 16 E., and N. W. ¼ of [652]*652S. W. ¼ and S. ½ of S. W. ¼, 10, 31 S., 16 E.; that the County Commissioners of Pinellas County pretended to establish .a drainage district in said county known as the Booker Creek Drainage District, and sought therein to make the said lands of complainant a part thereof and to subject the same to an assessment on account of special benefits alleged to have been received; that complainant was not advised that such a drainage district was contemplated until after such assessment was attempted to be made; that complainant took no part “in an attempt to establish this drain, nor approved of the same, or agreed in any manner that the same if established would enhance the value of complainant’s land in any particular whatsoever;” that the proceedings of the county commissioners in establishing the drainage district adjudged to be void because of irregularities in the said proceedings, and the assessments made and the certificates issued and liens thereunder were “declared to be nugatory and void,” and the county commissioners were “perpetually enjoined from further proceeding under the said special drainage district known as the Booker Creek Drainage District based upon petitions heretofore filed therein,” and the collection of assessments was enjoined and the lien removed by final decree of the Circuit Court; that subsequently a statute, Chapter 6959, Acts of 1915, was passed which declared in effect that such certificates or assessments made * * * should be legal and binding upon all persons and a valid lien upon the real estate contained within such district or attempted district; that subsequently a statute Chapter 6963, Acts of 1915, was passed wherein it is provided that in the event it is shown that an attempt has been made to establish a public ditch or drain and the same shall have bteen discovered to be void or so decreed by the court, that in such event the board [653]*653of county commissioners shall upon the issuance of certain notices provided for in said act, proceed to assess the lands contained within the said attempted drainage district with the proportionate amount of benefit such lands shall have received by reason of the construction of such drain; that notwithstanding the decree adjudging the former proceedings to be invalid, the county commissioners are now proceeding by advertisement of notices, and are now proceeding to assess against the lands herein named a sum of money with which to pay off the original scrip, certificates or evidences of indebtedness issued as aforesaid for work done in the construction of said drain; “that the said board of county commissioners is not attempting to assess against the lands within the said district a sum in accordance with the benefits received, but the proportionate part of the original cost for the construction of the same;” that such latter proceedings are without authority of law; “that the proceedings under which the work was performed and original ditch or drain established was wholly void and that the proceedings on the part of the County Commissioners is an attempt to avoid the full force and effect of the former decree rendered in connection therewith; that the said last named Act of the legislature is inoperative and unconstitutional in so far as it applies to the attempted Booker Creek Drainage District; that the said drainage was never attempted on the ground of any public benefit or under police powers of the State but based solely upon the consideration of individual benefits to be secured in the establishment of the drain; but that in truth and in fact no appreciable number of the owners of land within the said district applied for the same; that the petition as actually filed contained only about thirty names while in fact the said district attempted to be established con[654]*654táined an assessment against the lands of about seven hundred persons; that said original proceeding was fraudulent in its beginning and was in fact carried out without any authority of law and the attempt now by the Board of County Commissioners to re-assess the lands therein would amount to the taking of your orator’s property and without condemnation as required under the constitution of the State of Florida, and that an attempt to transfer moneys arising from such assessment to the holders of certificates of indebtedness issued under the former assessment would be in truth and in fact a donation since the same were never lawfully acquired nor owned by such holders by reason of the fact that such certificates were wholly void and did not then and do not now raise any obligation for payment either upon the lands within the said attempted district nor upon the County of Pinellas; that the said respondents are now proceeding to assess against the lands of your orator a sum of money and to make such assessment and charge as lien against your orator’s lands; that if the said respondents are permitted to.make such assessments that the same will be spread upon the records of Pinellas County, Florida, and will become a charge and claim thereon and a cloud upon your orator’s title in and to the same and will therefore render the same of less value to your orator for purpose of sale or other disposition.”

The prayer is for a temporary-and permanent injunction and for general relief.

A decree pro confesso was entered. The court granted a temporary injunction and the defendants appealed.

The statutes make provision for the establishment of drainage districts whenever it shall be deemed necessary or expedient, for the benefit .of any lands that are low, [655]*655wet, submerged or liable to become submerged, to establish a public ditch, drain or canal in any of the counties of the State, and provides appropriate procedure for such purpose. The assessment is required to be against each parcel of land “according and in proportion as it shall be benefited by said ditch, drain or canal, for all expenses that may be incurred in the construction of said ditch,drain or canal, including the interest, charges, expenses” etc. §§950 et seq., Genl. Stats. 1906, as amended; §§950 et seq., Compiled Laws 1914.

Chapters 6959 and 6963 of 1915 are as follows:

“CHAPTER 6959 — (No. 153).
An Act Ratifying, Validating and Confirming the Creation and Organization of Certain Drainage Districts in the State of Florida, Created and Organized under the Provisions of Chapter 16, Title 9, First Division of the General Statutes of the State of Florida, and Being Sections 950 to 960 Inclusive of the General Statutes, and the Amendments Thereto Contained in Chapter 6457, Laws of Florida, Acts of the Legislature for the Year 1913, and Validating and Confirming the Assessments Made and Bonds Issued by Said Drainage Districts, and Declaring Said Assessments and Bonds to be Valid and Binding Liens Upon the Real Estate in Said Drainage Districts.
Be it Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
Section 1. That the creation and organization of every drainage district in the State of Florida, created and organized under the provisions of Chapter 16, Title 9, First Division of the General Statutes of the State of [656]

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

Related

State v. County of Sarasota
155 So. 2d 543 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1963)
Ward v. . Howard
7 S.E.2d 625 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Town of Gulfport v. Mendels
174 So. 8 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
Lots No. 1685 v. Town of Defuniak Springs
174 So. 29 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
Dover Drainage District v. Pancoast
135 So. 518 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)
Towns v. State Ex Rel. Attorney General
135 So. 822 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)
Wilton v. County St. Johns
123 So. 527 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1929)
Board of Commissioners v. Forbes Pioneer Boat Line
80 Fla. 252 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 So. 206, 71 Fla. 651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-tennessee-florida-land-investment-co-fla-1916.