City of Jacksonville v. Massey Business College
Decision Date | 15 March 1904 |
Citation | 47 Fla. 339,36 So. 432 |
Parties | CITY OF JACKSONVILLE v. MASSEY BUSINESS COLLEGE. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
In Banc. Appeal from Circuit Court, Duval County; Rhydon M Call, Judge.
Bill by the Massey Business College against the city of Jacksonville. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
1. It is incumbent upon a complainant to allege in his bill every fact clearly and definitely that is necessary to entitle him to relief, and if he omits essential facts therefrom, or states such facts therein as show that he is not entitled to relief in a court of equity, he must suffer the consequences of his so doing.
2. Where a bill in equity wholly fails to state a cause of action, or wholly fails to present a case where the relief prayed is authorized, it is the duty of an appellate court to notice the defect, although it has been ignored in the pleadings, assignments of error, and arguments.
3. Where it appears upon the face of the bill that there is no equity in it, or that there is a plain and adequate remedy at law, and that a court of equity is wholly incompetent to grant the relief sought, the case should be remanded by the appellate court, with directions to dismiss the bill, even though no such objection was made in the pleadings, presented in the trial court, or argued before the appellate court.
4. A court of equity will not entertain a bill for injunction against a municipal corporation which threatens to enforce the payment of taxes assessed by said municipal corporation upon personal property by the seizure and sale thereof without lawful authority, as such seizure would be a mere trespass, remediable in a court of law.
J. M Barrs, for appellant.
D. C. Campbell, for appellee.
On the 1st day of November, 1902, the appellee, the Massey Business College, a corporation, filed its bill in equity against appellant, the city of Jacksonville, a municipal corporation, in the Duval circuit court, which said bill, omitting its formal parts, was as follows:
'(5) That the complainant, as its name implies, was duly organized and exists for the sole purpose of teaching men, women, and children literature, science, and art, and impart to men, women, and children a knowledge of literature, science, and art, and give to men, women, and children a scientific and literary education; and the complainant does not conduct or manage any other business, occupation, or profession, or enjoy any other privilege.
'(6) That complainant is a literary institution, also a scientific institution, and also an educational institution duly organized, incorporated, and existing under the Constitution and laws of the state of Florida, for literary, scientific, and educational purposes.
'(7) That complainant had only certain personal property, consisting of schoolbooks, stationery, school desks, chairs, maps, typewriters, blackboards, and tables, such, and such only, as is used in ordinary schoolrooms, and is necessary for schoolroom furniture and equipment, and which said personal property was 'held and used exclusively for literary, scientific, and educational purposes' by teachers and pupils of complainant, and for no other purposes, and which is all the property of any kind complainant ever owned or controlled.
'(8) That the respondent has heretofore, through its mayor and city council and other officers, agents, and employés, assessed the said above-described property for taxes or taxation for municipal purposes, and the complainant has heretofore duly applied to the respondent and to its city council and mayor, as required by its ordinances, rules, and regulations, to have all assessments of the said property for taxes and taxation canceled, and relieved from further assessments, and the respondent and its mayor and the city council has denied complainant's said application, and has refused to cancel any and all assessments heretofore made of said property for taxes or taxation for municipal purposes, and the respondent, its officers, agents, and employés are demanding the taxes from the complainant for and upon said property, and threaten to seize and sell certain property for said taxes unless enjoined and restrained by this court.
'(9) That the only authority or power which would permit respondent or its officers, agents, or employés, to assess property or demand, collect, or receive taxes upon any property is the authority or power delegated to it by the Legislature of the state of Florida, but the Legislature of the state of Florida only delegated to it the power or authority to levy and collect taxes on property and privileges taxable by law for state purposes, and the board of county commissioners of Duval county, Florida, have already decided and determined that the said property of complainant is not taxable by law for state purposes, and have canceled any and all assessments heretofore made against said property for the state purposes, because the said property is 'held and used exclusively for literary, scientific, and educational purposes,' and by a literary, scientific, and educational institution.
'(10) That the Legislature of the state of Florida could not lawfully delegate to the respondent or to its officers, agents, or employés the power or authority to assess the said property of complainant, or to collect taxes thereon, because the Constitution of the state of Florida expressly forbids the Legislature to assess or collect taxes upon the said property even for state purposes, because it belongs to a literary, scientific, and educational institution, duly organized for literary, scientific, and educational purposes, and it is 'held and used exclusively for literary, scientific, and educational purposes,' and for no other purposes, and the Legislature cannot delegate to respondent any power or authority it does not possess, and especially that power and authority which the Constitution in express terms forbids the Legislature to exercise or use itself.
'Wherefore complainant prays for the state's most gracious writ of subpoena directed to the respondent, the city of Jacksonville, commanding it to appear and answer this bill of complaint, and for a permanent decree from this court enjoining the city of Jacksonville...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Masser v. London Operating Co.
... ... See Baya v ... Lake City, 44 Fla. 491, 33 So. 400; Richardson v ... Kittlewell, ... 776, 46 So. 291; City of ... Jacksonville v. Massey Business College, 47 Fla. 339, 36 ... So. 432; ... ...
-
Prall v. Prall
... ... 510, 102 N.W ... 1, 3 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 773; City of North Muskegon v ... Clark, 62 F. 694, 10 C. C. A ... See ... City of Jacksonville v. Massey Business College, 47 ... Fla. 339, 36 So. 432; ... ...
-
Norris v. Eikenberry
... ... Miami ... Hardware, etc., Co., v. Magic City Bldg. Co., 96 Fla ... 32, 117 So. 704; Fort Myers ... 776, 46 So. 291; ... City of Jacksonville v. Massey Business College, 47 ... Fla. 339, 36 So. 432; ... ...
-
Smith v. Pattishall
... ... long east and west, in the city of Orlando. A suit was ... pending against him by the ... City of ... Jacksonville v. Massey Business College, 47 Fla. 339, 36 ... So. 432; ... ...