Bloxham v. Florida Cent. & P.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 17 March 1897
• Citation: 39 Fla. 243,22 So. 697
• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Parties: BLOXHAM, Comptroller, et al. v. FLORIDA CENT. & P. R. CO.

22 So. 697

39 Fla. 243

BLOXHAM, Comptroller, et al. v. FLORIDA CENT. & P. R. CO.

Florida Supreme Court

March 17, 1897

Appeal from circuit court, Leon county; John F. White, Judge.

Supplemental bill, in the nature of a bill of review, by the Florida Central & Peninsular Railroad Company against William D Bloxham, comptroller, and John A. Pearce, sheriff. A demurrer to the bill was overruled, and defendants appeal. Reversed with directions.

Carter J., dissenting.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. Bills of review, and supplemental bills in the nature of bills of review, when permissible according to the settled rules of chancery practice, may be allowed to be filed in the lower court to affect decrees rendered there, but other considerations are involved where such bills are resorted to after the decree of the lower court has been passed upon by the appellate court.

2. When the appellate court affirms the decree of the lower court, or when such decree is modified on appeal either as to questions of law or fact necessarily involved, with directions for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, the lower court has no authority to open the case for a new trial, or to enter any other judgment than that directed to be entered unless authority to do so be expressly given by the appellate court.

3. The mandate of the appellate court should be construed with reference to the opinion of the court rendered in the case in which it is issued.

4. The appellate court has the power on an independent petition filed for that purpose, after a mandate on a former appeal has been issued and lodged in the lower court, and a judgment entered thereon, to grant leave to apply to file a bill of review or supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review. Such leave should not be granted as a matter of course, but only in the exercise of a sound discretion when it appears that good and sufficient grounds exist for filing such bill; and, where the application is made on the ground of newly-discovered matter, the questions of the materiality of the alleged new matter and laches will both arise.

5. The supreme court has the power, in awarding on appeal the decree, whether of affirmance or reversal, to be entered by the lower court, to direct that it shall be without prejudice to the right to make application in said court for leave to file a bill of review, or supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review, when it appears from the record in the cause that good ground exists for making such application; and where a decree of the lower court has been modified on appeal, with directions to that court to enter a decree in accordance with the opinion rendered, and such mandate has not been obeyed, but leave granted by the lower court to file a supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review, the supreme court may, in reversing the order permitting such bill to be filed, and directing that judgment be entered in accordance with the former opinion, direct that the decree be entered, with leave to apply to the lower court to file a bill of review, or supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review, when, from the record before the court, good ground exists for making such application.

COUNSEL

William B. Lamar, Atty. Gen., for appellants.

John A. Henderson, for appellee. The mandate issued in this cause when before this court at the January term, A. D. 1895, reads as follows, viz.:

'Whereas, lately, in the circuit court of the Second judicial circuit of Florida, in and for the county of Leon, in a cause wherein the Florida Central and Peninsular Railroad Company was plaintiff, and William D. Bloxham, as comptroller of the state of Florida, and John A. Pearce, as sheriff of Leon county, Florida, were defendants, the decree and order of said circuit court were rendered November 25th, A. D. 1893, as by the inspection of the transcript of the record of the said circuit court, which was brought into the supreme court of the state of Florida, by virtue of an appeal, agreeably to the laws of said state in such case made and provided, fully and at large appears.

'And whereas, at the January term of the said supreme court, holden at Tallahassee, A. D. 1895, the said cause came on to be heard before the said supreme court on the said transcript of the record, and was argued by counsel, in consideration whereof it was considered by said supreme court that the said decree of the circuit court holding the lines of railroad described therein as subject to taxation in 1882, 1883, 1884, 1885, and 1886, and refusing an injunction against the assessment and collection of taxes thereon for 1886, and refusing to direct a return of the taxes paid for 1882, 1883, and 1884 by the Florida Railway and Navigation Company, be, and is hereby, affirmed, except that portion which holds the line of railroad of said appellee company from Ocala to Tampa subject to taxation aforesaid. The said decree be, and is hereby, reversed in so far as it makes subject to taxation, for the years named, that portion of the line of railroad of said appellee company from Ocala to Tampa, described in the bill of complaint as the line from Wildwood to Plant City, and the line from Plant City to Tampa. So much of said decree as holds that the statute under which the assessments were made, and under which proceedings are being taken by the appellants to collect taxes of the appellee company, is a special statute for the collection of general revenue, is unconstitutional and void, be, and is hereby, reversed. So much of the decree as holds that the several lines of railroad sought to be subjected to the payment of taxes herein was not assessable against the Florida Railway and Navigation Company for the years 1879, 1880, and 1881, and which enjoins the appellants from selling or attempting to sell the same, under the assessment aforesaid, or any part thereof, for the taxes of said years, or from in any manner interfering with or attempting to collect said taxes, be, and is hereby, reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings, in accordance with the opinion of the court filed herein; and it is further ordered that the appellants do recover of the appellee their costs by them in this behalf expended, taxed at the sum of seventy-three dollars and thirty cents: Therefore,

'You are hereby commanded, that such further proceedings be had in said cause as, according to right, justice, the judgment of said supreme court, and the laws of the state of Florida, ought to be had, the said decree of the circuit court notwithstanding.'

After the return of the mandate to the lower court, the appellee, complainant in the original bill in the cause, presented a petition to the chancellor for leave to file a supplemental bill, or such other pleading or amendment, for the purpose of determining certain questions mentioned, arising, as alleged in the petition, by reason of newly-discovered facts since the former decision in the case. The chancellor granted leave to file a supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review, and thereupon appellee filed a bill containing the following allegations, viz.:

'Complaining, showeth unto your honor, your orator, the Florida Central and Peninsular Railroad Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Florida:

'That on or about the 2d day of November, A. D. 1892, your orator exhibited its original bill of complaint in this honorable court against William D. Bloxham, as comptroller of Florida, and John A. Pearce, as sheriff of Leon county, aforesaid, the defendants hereinafter named as defendants thereto, thereby to have it decreed that the exemption from taxation under the 18th section of the internal improvement act was a continuing exemption for thirty-five years after the completion of the several lines of railroad constructed on the routes in said act designated, and that said exemption attached to the rem following the property into the hands of this complainant; (2) to have a decree for the recovery by the complainant, as successor to the rights therein of the Florida Railway and Navigation Company, of $140,812.47, paid by said last-named company in 1885 for taxes of 1882, 1883, and 1884 to the state of Florida, alleged to have been illegally assessed, and to have been paid under duress and upon protest; and (3) to enjoin the collection by these defendants of taxes assessed in 1885 against property now owned by the complainant for the years 1879, 1880, and 1881, which were sought to be collected under the provisions of the statutes (chapters 3558 and 4073, Laws Fla.).

'That in said bill of complaint it was stated that your orator became possessed of the railway property upon which has been assessed the tax complained of on the 1st day of May, 1889 and that your orator was then organized as a corporation for the purposes of operating and owning such railroad, by William Bayard Cutting and associates, who had been owners and holders of certain bonds and other evidences of indebtedness of the Florida Railway and Navigation Company, a company that before and until then owned and operated such lines of railway, and that being such creditors of said company, and having no other interest therein than as such creditors, they had been obliged to buy the railroads aforesaid at a judicial sale made and had in the enforcement of the liens for the security of such bonded indebtedness. That the said Florida Railway and Navigation Company was a corporation under the laws of Florida, created by the consolidation of certain separate lines of the railways here involved, to wit, of the Florida Central and Western Railroad and the Transit and Peninsular Railroad and other companies, the Fernandina and Jacksonville...