Camp v. State
| Decision Date | 29 March 1916 |
| Citation | 71 Fla. 381,72 So. 483 |
| Parties | CAMP et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Headnotes Filed August 8, 1916.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; W. S. Bullock, Judge.
Action by the State by G. W. Scofield, State Attorney, under Laws 1911, c. 6237 (Comp. Laws 1914, §§ 2027a-2027f), against the City of Ocala, in which R. C. Camp and another intervened. From the decree, interveners appeal. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Chapter 7205, approved June 4, 1915, is not obnoxious to the Constitution on the alleged ground that part of its subject-matter is not expressed in its title. Neither is it in violation of the Constitution by divesting the appellants of any vested rights to an alleged defense to litigation. Neither does it violate the Constitution by divesting this court of jurisdiction to determine any question at issue in litigation pending before it.
The Legislature has plenary powers over municipalities, and over the issue thereby of bonds for municipal purposes, and can authorize an incorporated city or town to issue bonds for a legitimate municipal purpose without any submission of the question to the electorate of such municipality.
Anderson & Anderson, of Ocala, for appellants.
F. R Hocker and R. A. Burford, both of Ocala, for appellees.
This appeal is taken from an order or decree of the circuit court of Marion county under the provisions of chapter 6237, Laws approved June 3, 1911 (Comp. Laws 1914, §§ 2027a-2027f), made on the 6th day of March, 1915, validating an issue of bonds in the sum of $75,000 to be issued by the municipality of the city of Ocala for the erection and purchase of an electric light plant for such city, voted for by the electors of such city at an election held to decide upon such issue of bonds on the 28th day of October, 1914.
The appellants, as intervening citizens, came in with an answer to the petition for such order of validation opposing the same upon divers grounds, such as the alleged want of power in the municipality to erect or purchase an electric light plant until after it had been authorized to so erect or purchase it by a majority vote of the electors in such city who were the owners of at least $200 worth of property, real or personal, in such city, at an election held to decide that question, and that after this question had been favorably passed upon by the property owning electors, then it could call and hold another election to be voted at by all the electors of such city, regardless of their property holdings to decide upon the issue of bonds with which to raise the funds for the erection or purchase of such plant. The circuit judge at the hearing overruled all of the contentions of the appellants, and on the 6th day of March, 1915, made the order appealed from, validating said bond issue. From this order the appellants entered their appeal to this court on the 20th day of March, 1915, making the same returnable to this court on the 15th day of June, 1915. Subsequently to the rendition of said validating order appealed from, and subsequently to the entry of said appeal therefrom, but prior to the return day of said appeal, to wit, on June 4, 1915, there was enacted by the Legislature and approved by the Governor on that date a sweeping act, legalizing and validating the said election held on October 28, 1914, and said issue of bonds proposed thereby, which act is chapter 7205, and is entitled:
'An act to legalize and validate the election held in and by the city of Ocala on the 28th day of October, A. D. 1914, to determine whether or not said city should issue bonds to the sum of $75,000 for the purpose of erecting and equipping an electric light station and system in and for said city, and to carry into effect, legalize and confirm the results of said election.'
The body of said act, omitting its preamble, is as follows:
'Approved June 4, 1915.'
Inasmuch as this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith Bros. v. Williams
...834; Cranor v. Board, 54 Fla. 526, 45 So. 455; Givens v. Hillsborough County, 46 Fla. 502, 35 So. 88, 110 Am. St. Rep. 104; Camp v. State, 71 Fla. 381, 72 So. 483; Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U.S. 345, 8 S.Ct. 921, L.Ed. 763; Taylor v. Hastings Drainage District, 78 Fla. 268, 82 So. 815; Wagne......
-
State ex rel. Morgan v. Hemenway
...119 Ga. 83, 46 S.E. 80; Probasco v. Moundsville, 11 W.Va. 501; Powell v. Parkersburg, 28 W.Va. 698; Booten v. Pinson, 89 S.E. 985; Camp v. State, 72 So. 483; McClintock v. Great Falls, 53 Mont. 221, 163 P. City of Ensley v. Simpson, 166 Ala. 366, 52 So. 61; State ex rel. v. Thompson, 69 So.......
-
State v. Hemenway
...11 W. Va. 501; Powell v. City of Parkersburg, 28 W. Va. 698; Booten v. Pinson (W. Va.) 89 S. E. 985, L. R. A. 1917A, 1244; Camp et al. v. State, 71 Fla. 381, 72 South. 483; McClintock v. City of Great Falls, 53 Mont. 221, 163 Pac. loc. cit. 101; City of Ensley et al. v. Simpson, 166 Ala. 36......
-
Simpkin v. City of Rock Springs
...Town v. Jenkins, 57 N.Y. 177; Williams v. Town, 66 N.Y. 129; Town v. Webb & Co., 72 S.E. 460; Highway Com. v. Co., 68 N.E. 211; Camp. v. State, 72 So. 483; the burden of taxation falls upon real estate; personal property is moveable and in many instances escapes taxation; as a matter of pol......