Charlotte Harbor Ry Co v. Welles
| Decision Date | 16 October 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 4,4 |
| Citation | 260 U.S. 8,43 S.Ct. 3,67 L.Ed. 100 |
| Parties | CHARLOTTE HARBOR & N. RY. CO. v. WELLES et al., Board of Com'rs of De Soto County, Fla |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Kenneth I. McKay, of Tampa, Fla., for plaintiff in error.
Bill in equity to declare illegal the creation of a special road and bridge district, designated as the Charlotte Harbor special road and bridge district, in De Soto county, Fla., and to restrain the defendants in error, as and constituting the board of county commissioners, from paying out any funds in settlement of any supposed obligations contracted for work done in pursuance of the plan proposed, and, further, to enjoin the commissioners until the final hearing in this cause from contracting any further obligations or paying out any further moneys on account of the construction of roads and bridges under the plan proposed, and for such other and further relief as equity may require.
The ground of the suit and the relief prayed is that the district was constituted of territory which overlapped territory included in another district theretofore created, and that therefore the board of commissioners to which the creation of the district was committed by the law of the state, as the law then existed, was without power to establish the district.
The board of commissioners demurred to the bill, and alleged as the grounds thereof the insufficiency of the bill to authorize equitable relief, and besides alleged that complainant was estopped by not complaining earlier, and by its delay had permitted the expenditures of money by the board of commissioners.
The demurrer was sustained, and a decree entered dismissing the bill. The decree was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the state, and to its decision this writ of error is directed.
The opinion of the court considers and disposes of all state questions, including the one pertinent to our consideration; that is, that the Legislature had power to create special road and bridge districts which overlapped, and having that power, it also had the power 'to pass an act curing or validating the action of the county commissioners in creating a special road and bridge district partly lying in another special road and bridge district.' 'This,' the court said,
The court, therefore, sustained the act which is attacked, taking judicial notice of it; it having been passed pending the suit (chapter 8024, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1919). The court said it was passed for the special purpose of validating the action of the commissioners, 'and legalizing and validating the assessments made for the construction of the roads and bridges' in the newly created district, the indebtedness incurred and the warrants issued for the payment of the expenses incident thereto, or which should thereafter issue, and also validated and legalized the assessments and levy of taxes in the district.
The court further said that that doctrine had theretofore been recognized in the state. Cases...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Untermyer v. Anderson
...paid before there was a valid authorization either of the improvement or of the assessment. Compare Charlotte Harbor & Northern Ry. Co. v. Welles, 260 U. S. 8, 43 S. Ct. 3, 67 L. Ed. 100. Such retroactive legislation has been sustained, although the validating statute was not enacted until ......
-
Lewis v. Leon County
... ... In the able opinion of Mr. Justice Whitfield ... it was said: ... 'A ... river, harbor or bay of a port is a public highway, useful to ... the people of the county in which it is ... Legislature may validate administrative acts that it could ... have authorized ( Charlotte Harbor & N. R. Co. v ... Welles, 78 Fla. 227, 82 So. 770; Charlotte Harbor & ... N. R. Co. v ... ...
-
Diamond v. Parkersburg-Aetna Corp.
...of the enforcement of such statutes is found in 4 Thompson on Corporations, Par. 5411.'' In Charlotte Harbor and Northern Railway Company v. Welles, 260 U.S. 8, 43 S.Ct. 3, 67 L.Ed. 100, the court said: 'The general and established proposition is that, what the Legislature could have author......
-
Scott v. Scott
... ... can ratify, if it can authorize at the time of ... ratification.' Charlotte Harbor & N. Ry. Co. v ... Welles, 1919, 260 U.S. 8, 43 S.Ct. 3, 67 L.Ed. 100, affirming ... ...