Andrews v. City of Winter Haven

Decision Date13 September 1941
Citation148 Fla. 144,3 So.2d 805
PartiesANDREWS v. CITY OF WINTER HAVEN.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Polk County; H. C. Petteway judge.

H. C Crittenden and W. H. Hamilton, both of Winter Haven, for appellant.

Henry Sinclair, of Winter Haven, for appellee.

TERRELL, Justice.

On May 1, 1933, the City of Winter Haven had a bonded debt of more than two million dollars, much of which was in default. For the purpose of refunding such indebtedness, refunding bonds in the sum of $2,148,054.78, designated as City of Winter Haven General Refunding Bonds, Issue of 1933, Series 'A' and 'B', were authorized and issued.

Series 'A' bonds were for the purpose of refunding the original bonds of the City bearing six per cent interest, and Series 'B' bonds were for the purpose of refunding the original bonds of the City bearing five and one half per cent interest. All bonds of both series were dated April 1, 1933. The full quota of both series was issued, but a small percentage of the original bond holders declined to exchange for the refunding bonds of 1933.

Each refunding bond of the 1933 issue contained a graduated interest payment provision and a provision for calling on any interest payment date according to a designated schedule. Each refunding bond also included a 'deferred interest coupon' to represent the difference between the interest rate on the original bonds and the refunding bonds as follows:

'No._____.

$145.00

'On the First Day of April, 1963, the City of Winter Haven, Polk County Florida, will pay to bearer at the Central Hanover Bank and Trust Company of New York City, in the City of New York, New York, the sum of One hundred forty-five and no-100 Dollars ($145,00), being the then enforcible, collectible and deferred interest on its City of Winter Haven General Refunding Bond Issue of 1933, Series 'A' dated April 1, 1933, unless said bond shall have been theretofore called for redemption.'

On January 1, 1941 the total indebtedness of the City of Winter Haven was $2,150,720.36, slightly above the 1933 amount and was represented by the principal, accrued and defaulted interest on refunding bonds, and judgments on bonds not exchanged for the 1933 refunding bonds but none of it was represented by the 'deferred interest coupons'. In October, 1940 the City entered into contract to refund its outstanding indebtedness so stated which contract contemplated all 1933 refunding bonds but did not include payment of any portion of the 'deferred Interest Coupons' therein. The latter refunding bonds were dated January 1, 1941, and have been validated by decree of the Circuit Court.

Under the new refunding contract, the City proposes to sell at not less than par all unexchanged refunding bonds of the 1941 issue but makes no provision for paying any part of the 'deferred interest coupons' on any of the 1933 refunding bonds in the event of redemption. In this the City takes the position that the 'deferred interest coupons' are void and no part of them should be paid.

On advice of such determination by the City, George Andrews, a holder of 1933 refunding bonds, brought this suit in equity and prayed for a declaratory judgment to have his right in said bonds adjudicated. The bill of complaint alleges that in the event the 1933 refunding bonds are called prior to April 1, 1943, at 50 per cent of the face amount or $72.50 per coupon for each $1,000 bond which is in keeping with the terms of the contract, the 'deferred interest coupons' shall bear this amount and be paid. The bill further prayed that the City be required to levy $120,000 each year on all taxable property to service the refunding bonds of 1933 or for such as remained unexchanged and that the City be enjoined from using any of said funds to service the January, 1941, refunding bonds.

In its answer to the bill of complaint, the City alleges that the 'deferred interest coupons' are invalid and in violation of Section S...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Meredith v. City of Winter Haven
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • November 8, 1943
    ...Alta-Cliff Co. v. Spurway, 113 Fla. 633, 152 So. 731; Lee v. Bond-Howell Lumber Co., 123 Fla. 202, 166 So. 733, and Andrews v. City of Winter Haven, 148 Fla. 144, 3 So.2d 805. It expressed doubt as to what the Florida law, applicable to the facts presented, now is or will be declared to be,......
  • Meredith v. City of Winter Haven, 10402.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • May 24, 1943
    ...Fla. 402, 195 So. 175; State v. Special Tax School District No. 3 of Pinellas County, 143 Fla. 557, 197 So. 127; and Andrews v. Winter Haven, 148 Fla. 144, 3 So.2d 805, and plaintiffs have appealed. They make two contentions here. The first is that these decisions are contrary to the rule o......
  • Meredith v. City of Winter Haven, 10402.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • April 22, 1944
    ...bond money ought to be enjoined. While the present case was pending in the district court there was decided the case of Andrews v. Winter Haven, 148 Fla. 144, 3 So.2d 805, which the City relies on as determining this case. The Andrews case seems to hold, on the authority of Outman v. Cone, ......
  • City of Oldsmar v. State, SC00-2695.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 12, 2001
    ...Mut. Ins. Co. v. Magaha, 769 So.2d 1012 (Fla.2000) (insurance company filed for declaratory relief); Andrews v. City of Winter Haven, 148 Fla. 144, 3 So.2d 805 (1941) (declaratory judgment action); Kathleen Citrus Land Co. v. City of Lakeland, 124 Fla. 659, 169 So. 356 (1936) (injunction ac......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT