Taylor v. Williams

• Decision Date: 23 February 1940
• Parties: TAYLOR v. WILLIAMS, Tax Collector, et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

195 So. 175

142 Fla. 402

TAYLOR v. WILLIAMS, Tax Collector, et al.

Florida Supreme Court

February 23, 1940

Suit by Dodge Taylor against B. A. Williams, as Tax Collector of Lake County, Fla., and others to enjoin the sale of land for taxes levied and assessed for the year 1938 and to enjoin future taxes against the land located in several overlapping special road and bridge districts. From a decree dismissing the bill of complaint, plaintiff appeals.

Reversed.

Rehearing denied in 195 So. 184. Appeal from Circuit Court, Lake County; J. C B. Koonce, Judge.

COUNSEL

Thos B. Adams, of Jacksonville, and Duncan, Hamlin & Duncan, of Tavares, for appellant.

J. W Hunter and Harry P. Johnson, both of Tavares, Robert J. Pleus, of Or lando, and D. C. Hull and Hull, Landis & Whitehair, all of De Land, for appellees.

OPINION

WHITFIELD Justice.

A resident citizen owner of described land located within each of several over-lapping special road and bridge districts in Lake County, Florida, filed a bill in equity seeking to enjoin the sale of the land for the taxes levied and assessed for the year 1938, and to enjoin future taxes against his land located in each of such overlapping districts to pay bonds issued by the several special road and bridge districts, respectively, for road construction, it being alleged that the bonds were illegally issued and are void. Other relief is also sought. The defendants filed no pleading. The court denied an injunction and dismissed the bill of complaint. Plaintiff appealed.

This suit is not to validate bonds under the statute, but it is brought by a taxpayer alleging illegality of the tax imposed for payment of bonds alleged to be illegal and void. Illegality in the contract for refunding bond fees is also alleged.

Questions 1 and 8 formulated by appellant in effect present contentions that the constitution impliedly forbids statutes creating or authorizing road and bridge districts to be established, with taxing authority to levy district taxes and to issue district bonds for the construction or maintenance of public roads in the districts respectively; and that 'the County of Lake had no power or authority under any general law or under any special law to execute or promise to pay such bonds and that the supposed original bonds attempted to be issued for these special road and bridge districts are not the bonds of the districts severally; that as to said districts they are void and without force or effect. The consequence is that the supposed refunding bonds involved in this case are, if anything, original contracts and void because never approved by any freeholder election. As a result of the illegality of both the original supposed bonds and the so-called refunding bonds all debt service levies made in 1938 for these special road and bridge districts are severally void.'

Prior to the 1930 amendment to section 6, Article IX, constitution, regulating the issue of county, district and municipal bonds, various road and bridge districts in Lake county, Florida, were created or authorized by statute with statutory authority to issue district bonds for public road construction purposes and to levy taxes in the districts, respectively, to pay the bonds. Some special statutes like several of those in this case authorized district bond issues without an approving vote of the electorate prior to 1930.

It appears that the bonds were refunded in proceedings pursuant to a contract dated August 6, 1935, and additions thereto, and pursuant to resolutions adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Lake County, Florida, April 6, 1936, approving, adopting and confirming such contract; and that on August 7, 1939, another agreement was approved and resolutions adopted for another refunding of 'all outstanding principal of the funded indebtedness of the county and all special road and bridge districts therein.'

The constitution provides for school districts, sections 10 and 17, Article XII; and does not expressly or impliedly forbid the establishment of drainage, road and bridge or other districts, but 'incorporated districts' are expressly referred to in section 10, Article IX. Amended section 6, Article IX of the State constitution was adopted in 1930, after many districts had been established throughout the State by or under statutory authority and after authority to issue bonds and to tax for district bonds and other purposes had been conferred upon and exercised by or for the districts by duly authorized officers for proper district purposes, all being done to secure local improvements or facilities. The 1930 amendment to the constitution recognizes the existence of established districts in the State, and expressly regulates future issues of district bonds and refunding bonds. This organic amendment in effect approved the statutory policy of the legislature authorizing local districts with bond and tax authority for duly authorized district purposes, the constitution not forbidding statutes establishing or authorizing the establishment of districts with authority to issue bonds and to levy taxes to pay the bonds issued for public road construction and other district purposes. The construction and maintenance of public roads is for statutory determination; and it may be made in whole or in part a State or county or district purpose.

Districts are established by or under organic or statutory authority, not for local governmental purposes as are counties and municipalities, but for the purpose of constructing or securing and maintaining public roads or other public improvements or facilities for local benefits to accrue therefrom to the inhabitants of each district and its citizens and taxpayers. See Jinkins v. Entzminger, 102 Fla. 167, 135 So. 785; Hopkins v. Special R. & B. Dist., 73 Fla. 247, 74 So. 310; Martin v. Dade Muck Land Co., 95 Fla. 530, 116 So. 449; Lee, Comptroller, v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., Fla., 194 So. 252, filed January 2, 1940. The taxes are not required to be measured by actual or immediate special benefits to lands or to the inhabitants of a district. See St. Louis & S.W. Ry. v. Nattin, 277 U.S. 157, 48 S.Ct. 438, 72 L.Ed. 830. The Tennessee and other authorities as to the power of the legislature to create or authorize taxing districts, cited by counsel for appellant, do not control under the interpretation of the Florida constitution.

The constitution does not require all taxes to be levied by a statute, but 'in pursuance of law', Const. art. 9, § 3; and when a board of county commissioners is by statute authorized to 'cause to be assessed and collected' a district tax for authorized district purposes, the county commissioners may by resolution require the tax assessor of the county to assess, and the tax collector of the county to collect, the authorized district tax for district purposes. The statutes here involved are not shown to be invalid or to be illegally applied in issuing bonds and levying taxes to pay the bonds.

Even if in some instance the amount of bonds authorized to be issued by county commissioners for district purposes is not specifically and expressly limited by statute, yet there may be implied limitations; and if appropriate and not excessive original bonds are issued and validated and sold and the proceeds used as provided by law for authorized district purposes, the abstract validity of the bonds, when not illegal or void for violation of organic law, may not, when validated and used as authorized, be challenged in the absence of fraud in which the bondholder participated. No clearly excessive issue of bonds of a particular district was duly shown. See principles announced in Getzen v. Sumter County, 89 Fla. 45, 103 So. 104; Paul Bros. v. Long Branch, etc., Bridge Dist., 83 Fla. 706, 92 So. 687.

Neither authorizing resolutions adopted, nor public road refunding bonds issued, by or for a district without the approving vote of the electorate of the particular road and bridge district can legally contain directly, indirectly or otherwise, any pledge or agreement or undertaking that will add to the security that was pledged in the original bonds for the payment of the bonds. Such road and bridge district refunding bonds must merely extend the time of payment of original bonds, with a continuation of the pledged security though at a lower rate of interest if acceptable in exchanging refunding bonds for the original bonds. No doubtful or ambiguous provisions should be in a refunding bond. The original agreement alone may be included and extended. Such additional pledge or agreement or undertaking if included in the resolutions for issuing the bonds or in the bonds violates amended section 6, Article IX of the constitution unless the required approving vote of the electorate is had. Statutes cannot authorize such added pledge, agreement or undertaking in issuing road and bridge district refunding bonds under amended section...