Bay County v. State

• Decision Date: 27 September 1934
• Citation: 157 So. 12,116 Fla. 664
• Parties: BAY COUNTY et al. v. STATE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

157 So. 12

116 Fla. 664

BAY COUNTY et al. v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court

September 27, 1934

En Banc.

Statutory proceeding by County of Bay, Fla., and others against the State of Florida to validate refunding bonds. From a decree for defendant, complainants appeal.

Reversed and remanded, with directions. Appeal from Circuit Court, Bay County; Ira A. Hutchinson, judge.

COUNSEL

Joseph W. Bailey, of Panama City, and E. J. L'Engle and J. W Shands, both of Jacksonville, for appellants.

C. R Mathis, State Atty., of Panama City, and J. H. Clancey, for the State.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Proceedings were brought by the county of Bay under the statute to have validated by judicial decree refunding bonds to be issued by the county; such refunding bonds to be divided in series as follows:

'$2,518,260.00 to be designated Series 'A,' to be exchanged for Road and Bridge bonds then outstanding, dated subsequent to October 1, 1923, $321,000.00 of Series 'B' bonds to be exchanged for the Toll Bridge Bonds dated July 1, 1925, $50,208.00 of Series 'C' to be exchanged for the Toll Bridge Bonds dated January 1, 1924 and $348,983.00 of Series 'D' bonds to be issued in exchange for road bonds dated prior to October 2, 1923. It seems that the principal reason for the division of the road bonds into Series 'A' and 'D' was merely to group the bonds of the county now outstanding according to the interest rate. The identity of the refunding bonds issued in exchange for the two issues of Toll Bridge Bonds was to be preserved. The bonds to be refunded by Series 'A' and 'B' bear six per cent interest, by Series 'C' and 'D' five per cent.'

The court denied the petition for validation on grounds that the resolution adopted by the board of county commissioners for issuing the bonds (1) 'attempts to irrevocably pledge all the revenues and income of the county derived from sources other than ad valorem taxes, for the payment of principal and interest of the proposed refunding bonds'; (2) attempts to provide that the county officials shall require delinquent taxes for 1930 and subsequent taxes (except taxes levied for road and bridge bonds) shall be paid in lawful money of the United States of America, and that said county officials shall not accept nor authorize the acceptance of bonds or interest-bearing coupons in payment of delinquent taxes heretofore levied for the payment of road and bridge refunding bonds; (3) attempts to accelerate the due dates of the refunding bonds upon default in paying interest; (4) attempts to make receipts from use of toll bridges applied to pay bonds.

The statutes expressly provide that the receipts from the use of bridges shall be expended (1) in the operation and maintenance of the bridges; (2) in payment of interest on the bonds...