City of Hollywood v. Broward County
| Decision Date | 11 September 1951 |
| Citation | 54 So.2d 205 |
| Parties | CITY OF HOLLYWOOD et al. v. BROWARD COUNTY. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Patterson, Freeman, Richardson & Watson, Giles J. Patterson, all of Jacksonville, and Ellis & Spencer, Hollywood, for appellants.
John U. Lloyd, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.
As authorized by Chapter 420, F.S.A., Chapter 23758, Acts of 1947, the Board of County Commissioners of Broward County made application to the Florida State Improvement Commission to construct certain roads, bridges and tunnels at different places in the County at a cost of $15,000,000 the said projects to be financed from funds of the State Road Department, including Federal Aid allocations in an estimated amount $2,000,000, including the proceeds of revenue bonds in the amount of $13,000,000.
Appellants as complainants have filed a bill for declaratory decree in which they pray for a determination of whether or not the action of the Board of County Commissioners was a valid exercise of its power. There was an answer to and a motion to dismiss the bill of complaint and on final hearing the chancellor found that the Board of County Commissioners was authorized to adopt the resolution and make the application. The complainants have appealed from that decree.
Four questions are urged for our determination. (1) Whether or not the action of the County Commissioners was authorized by Chpater 420, particularly Section 420.12, F.S.A. and if it was, whether or not the total of surplus gas taxes and tolls from the projects will be sufficient to pay the principal and interest on the bonds? (2) Can the County and City apply its annual road and bridge fund other than as specified by Section 343.17, F.S.A.? (3) Is the pledge of all surplus gasoline taxes for 30 years to finance the proposed projects an abuse of discretion in view of the needs of the City of Hollywood and the County at large as exemplified by Exhibit 'C' attached to the County's request? (4) Has the State Improvement Commission any power to construct tunnels with the proceeds of certificates payable from surplus gas taxes?
It appears that a great deal of the argument of counsel addressed to these questions arises from a disagreement or misunderstanding as to what the status of the transaction between the Board of County Commissioners and the State Improvement Commission is. As we see it, nothing more than an application to the Florida State Improvement Commission has been made, nothing is yet binding on it, it may consider the application but when it does, it will make no response to the County before it makes a thorough examination of the cost,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North Shore Bank v. Town of Surfside
...& Research Corp., Fla.1950, 49 So.2d 529; Bessemer Properties, Inc., v. Peters, Fla.1951, 51 So.2d 786; City of Hollywood v. Broward County, Fla.1951, 54 So.2d 205; Nelson v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 1951, 54 So.2d 207; Bessemer Properties, Inc. v. MacVicar, Fla.1953, 63 So.2d 647, has......
-
State v. Florida Development Commission
...the particular county entitled to the surplus. State v. State Board of Administration, 157 Fla. 360, 25 So.2d 880; City of Hollywood v. Broward County, Fla.1951, 54 So.2d 205. To this extent we have also held that this Court will not undertake to substitute its judgment for that of the Stat......
-
Okaloosa Island Leaseholders Ass'n, Inc. v. Okaloosa Island Authority, V--319
...answer to satisfy curiosity.' (70 So.2d at page 584.) (See also Ervin v. Taylor, Sup.Ct.Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 816; City of Hollywood v. Broward County, Sup.Ct.Fla.1951, 54 So.2d 205 and Miller v. Miller, Fla.App.2nd 1961, 151 So.2d Having determined that the motion to dismiss the complaint sho......
-
Bryant v. Gray
...was without jurisdiction where there were no actual adversaries as to a present, actual dispute or controversy. In City of Hollywood v. Broward County, Fla., 54 So.2d 205, we held a suit prematurely brought where the county's application for a funding program had not been acted upon by the ......