City of Jacksonville v. Renfroe

• Decision Date: 21 July 1931
• Citation: 136 So. 254,102 Fla. 512
• Parties: CITY OF JACKSONVILLE et al. v. RENFROE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

136 So. 254

102 Fla. 512

CITY OF JACKSONVILLE et al. v. RENFROE.

Florida Supreme Court

July 21, 1931

En Banc.

Suit by Henry A. Renfroe against the City of Jacksonville. Decree for the complainant, and the defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court.

SYLLABUS

Section 6, article 9, of the Constitution, as amended, divests counties, districts, and municipalities of any authority which either may have theretofore enjoyed to issue bonds except upon the compliance with the provisions of this section.

Bonds such as those here under consideration are negotiable instruments. and are controlled by what is generally known as the negotiable instrument statute of this state, section 4674, Rev. Gen. St. 1920, section 6760, Comp. Gen. Laws 1927 which in part provides as follows: "Issue' means the first delivery of the instrument, complete in form to a person who takes it as a holder.'

The word 'issued,' as applied to bonds, usually includes delivery, but it does not invariably do so. But, where a different meaning is to be given the word 'issue,' the intention to give it such different meaning must appear upon the face of the act or document in which it is used. The word 'issue' is used in section 6, article 9, of the Constitution, without any other language being used to indicate that any except the general meaning is to be applied to such word.

The bonds under consideration here were authorized, executed, and validated, but, before being issued as contemplated by law under the definition given in section 4674, Rev. Gen. St 1920, section 6760, Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, the organic law was amended in such manner as to bring the issuance of these bonds in conflict with its provisions. Appeal from Circuit Court, Duval County; De Witt T. Gray, judge.

COUNSEL

Austin Miller and Emmet Safay, both of Jacksonville, for appellant.

Wm. M Madison, of Jacksonville, for appellee.

OPINION

BUFORD C.J.

This case is before us on appeal from final decree adverse to the appellant.

On February 2, 1931, Henry A. Renfroe, appellee, exhibited his bill of complaint in the circuit court of Duval county, Fla., against the city of Jacksonville, appellant, seeking to enjoin the sale by said city of certain street improvement and auditorium bonds, the issuance of which was authorized by ordinances of said city pursuant to legislative authority and validated by the circuit court of Duval county, Fla., prior to November 4, A. D. 1930, the date of adoption of the constitutional amendment. The bill alleged that prior to November 4, 1930, appellant sold and delivered $143,000 worth of said street improvement bonds, and that there is now on hand and unsold $257,000 worth of said bonds; that the auditorium bonds were originally in the aggregate amount of $300,000, but that $125,000 worth of said bonds have lapsed and the city of Jacksonville has on hand and unsold $175,000 of said bonds; that appellant, acting by and through its city commission, was advertising and offering for sale the remainder of the city of Jacksonville's street improvement bonds, aggregating $257,000, and $50,000 of Jacksonville's municipal auditorium bonds. The bill then alleged that under the provisions of section 6 of article 9 of the Constitution, as amended at the general election held November 4, 1930, said bonds were unissued, and the city was prohibited from selling and disposing of the same.

A demurrer containing seven grounds was interposed to the bill. The demurrer in substance presented the contention that all of said bonds were authorized and validated prior to the adoption of the constitutional amendment and therefore were not affected thereby, and that the street improvement bonds were not within the purview of the constitutional amendment. The demurrer to the bill was overruled, and, appellant having declined to plead further, the court thereupon rendered a final decree enjoining the appellant from selling and otherwise disposing of the bonds of said city remaining on hand and unsold, upon the ground that said bonds were unissued within the meaning of section 6 of article 9 of the Constitution, as amended.

From the several rulings an appeal was taken to this court, and appellant assigns as error the order overruling the demurrer to the bill and the rendering of a final decree against appellant.

Section...