Anderson v. City of Ocala

• Decision Date: 17 March 1924
• Citation: 99 So. 667,87 Fla. 257
• Parties: ANDERSON v. CITY OF OCALA et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

99 So. 667

87 Fla. 257

ANDERSON v. CITY OF OCALA et al.

Florida Supreme Court

March 17, 1924

Rehearing Denied April 9, 1924.

Suit by R. L. Anderson, Jr., against the City of Ocala and others. From a decree denying an injunction and dismissing the bill plaintiff appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

West J., dissenting.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Supreme Court may determine merits of appeal without passing on application for preliminary injunction and before return day. Where the chancellor denies an injunction to prevent the issuing or selling of municipal bonds sought on the ground that the bonds had not been legally authorized, and on appeal an injunction is asked in this court under the provision of section 5, article 5, of the Constitution, that the Supreme Court shall have power to issue 'all writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction,' and the case is fully submitted on its merits, questions of law only being involved, this court may, in view of the public interests directly involved, determine the merits of the appeal, even though the return day has not yet arrived. Jacksonville Electric Light Co. v. City of Jacksonville, 36 Fla. 229, text 262, 18 So. 677, 30 L R. A. 540, 51 Am. St. Rep. 24; Antuono v. City of Tampa (filed February 4, 1924 ; Fla.) 99 So. 324.

Law providing that none but freeholders shall vote at county district, or other bond election held applicable to cities. Chapter 9294, Acts 1923, a general law, which became effective June 7, 1923, provides that 'it shall be unlawful for any person to vote or participate in any county, district or other bond election held in this state, who is not a freeholder therein and who is not otherwise qualified as a voter therein,' and repeals all conflicting laws or parts of laws. Such provision is applicable to municipal bond elections, and should have been applied to a bond election held in the city of Ocala on July 17, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; W. S. Bullock, judge.

COUNSEL

R. L. Anderson, Jr., of Ocala, for appellant.

D. Niel Ferguson, of Ocala, for appellees.

OPINION

WHITFIELD, J.

A bill was brought by a citizen, freeholder, taxpayer, and qualified elector of the city of Ocala to enjoin the issuing, selling or other disposition of municipal bonds that had been voted for at an election called by ordinances adopted June 5, 1923, the election being held on July 17, 1923, which election was participated in by 'only the duly qualified and registered voters of the said city of Ocala who were assessed with $220 of property, real or personal, upon the tax books of said city' as provided by a city ordinance authorized by the city charter. Subsequent to the call of the election and before the election was held the following statute was enacted and became effective as law:

'Chapter 9294--(No. 176).

'An Act to prescribe who shall be qualified electors in certain bond elections in this state.

'Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Florida:

'Section 1. That from and after the passage of this act it shall be unlawful for any person to vote or participate in any county, district, or other bond election held in this state, who is not a freeholder therein and who is not otherwise qualified as a voter therein.

'Sec. 2. All laws and parts of laws in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

'Sec. 3. This act shall take effect on its passage and becoming a law.

'Approved June 7, 1923.'

It is alleged 'that in the said bond election of July 17, 1923, that there were a sufficient number of said electors permitted to vote in said election who were not freeholders under the provisions of said act above quoted to have changed the results of said election, and to have determined not to authorize the issuance of said bonds.'

The chancellor denied the injunction and dismissed the bill. An appeal having been taken from the decree, an application is made to this court for an injunction under the provision of section 5, article 5, of the Constitution, that the Supreme Court shall have power to issue 'all writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction.' Cohen v. L'Engle, 24 Fla. 542, 5 So. 235; Wheeler v. Meggs, 75 Fla. 687, 78 So. 685.

The case having been fully briefed and submitted on its merits, and, only questions of law being involved, the court will, in view of the public interests directly concerned, determine the merits of the appeal, even though the return day has not yet arrived. This has been done under similar circumstances in other cases, the court having jurisdiction of the cause and of the parties therein, upon the entry and record of an appropriate appeal. Jacksonville Electric Light Co. v. City of Jacksonville, 36 Fla. 229, text 262, 18 So. 677, 30 L. R. A. 540, 51 Am. St. Rep. 24; State v. Commissioners of Volusia County, 28 Fla. 793, 10 So. 14; Warren v. Board of Public Instruction for Hillsborough County (Fla.) 97 So. 384; Antuono v. City of Tampa (filed February 4, 1924 ; Fla.) 99 So. 324. See, also, Crawford v. Gilchrist, 64 Fla. 41, 59 So. 963, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 916; Astca Inv. Co. v. Lake County, 98 So. 824; Peacock v. Feaster, 52 Fla. 563, 45 So. 1038.

Chapter 9294, Acts 1923, above quoted as 'expressly provided in such law,' took effect upon 'becoming a law,' and it became a law when approved by the Governor June 7, 1923. ...