Consolidated Land Co. v. Tyler
| Decision Date | 15 May 1924 |
| Citation | 101 So. 280,88 Fla. 14 |
| Parties | CONSOLIDATED LAND CO. et al. v. TYLER, Tax Collector, et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Petition for Rehearing Granted July 14, 1924.
Ordered that Decree Stand Reversed August 2, 1924.
Suit by the Consolidated Land Company and others against Frank M Tyler, as Tax Collector of St. Lucie County, and others. From orders denying temporary injunctions, and sustaining demurrers to an amended bill of complaint, plaintiffs appeal.
Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
Validity of tax levied in district or subdivision may depend on its nature or peculiar relation thereto; taxes imposing unjustly discriminating burden on property without resulting compensations illegal. The validity of a tax levied only in a district or subdivision of a county for a public purpose may depend upon the nature of the public purpose to be served and its special or peculiar relation to the property in the district, at least where public health, safety, or morals are not involved, and property in the district cannot lawfully be taxed for public improvements or facilities, if such tax for any reason substantially and materially imposes an unjustly discriminating burden upon the property, without any resulting compensations, benefits, or advantages, and the tax levy is an arbitrary exertion or an abuse of governmental authority.
Legislature may enact law taxing property within districts for public improvements; courts will accord wide latitude to legislative discretion in enacting statutes taxing property for public improvements. The Constitution contains no provision for the creation of bridge or other districts within a county for local public improvements or facilities to be paid for by taxation upon property within the particular district; yet the Constitution not forbidding, it is within the law-making power of the Legislature by a duly enacted statute to establish within a county a district, and to impose particular taxes upon property within the district to pay for a public local improvement or facility, when the formation of the district has at least some special or peculiar relation to benefits or advantages to accrue either directly or indirectly from the particular improvement or facility, and the property within the district is taxed with some substantial relation to benefits or advantages that reasonably may result to the property or to the owners thereof from the improvement or facility contemplated; and when duly called upon to protect private rights from alleged unlawful invasion by taxes imposed in the district, the courts, without failing to fully perform the judicial functions, will accord a wide latitude in the premises to the legislative discretion.
When creation of special taxing district arbitrarily imposes discriminating or oppressive tax burdens, injunction will be granted. Where a district is created, though for a proper public local improvement or facility, and its formation whether by statute or under legislative authority, has no just relation to some appreciable or substantial benefits or advantages that reasonably may directly or indirectly accrue from the contemplated improvement or facility, but is purely arbitrary and a plain abuse of governmental power, in attempting to unjustly impose the burden of a peculiarly county or state function or purpose on the property of the district alone, or by attempting to arbitrarily and unjustly include within the district property of considerable area or value that cannot conceivably be in any way benefited by the contemplated improvement or facility, or by attempting to impose arbitrary and unjustly discriminating or oppressive tax burdens upon property within the district, or by otherwise so exercising the governmental power as to violate organic property rights, the courts will, in appropriate proceedings duly taken, give effect to private rights secured by the Constitution by adjudging and enforcing such relief against unlawful taxation as the circumstances of a justiciable case may justify.
Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Lucie County; De Witt T. Gray, judge.
Knight & Adair and Reynolds & Rogers, all of Jacksonville, for appellants.
J. Turner Butler, of Jacksonville, and Fred Fee, of Ft. Pierce, for appellees.
This appeal is from orders denying temporary injunctions and sustaining demurrers to an amended bill of complaint, which in effect seeks to enjoin the collection of ad valorem taxes upon lands levied under chapter 8828, Special Acts of 1921 which statute incorporates 'a special taxing district in St. Lucie county, Florida, to be known and designated as 'Jensen Bridge District." Among other matters it is in effect contended, under supporting allegations admitted by the demurrers, that appellants' lands included in the bridge district are so located and conditioned with reference to the contemplated bridge that such lands can in no conceivable way receive any benefit whatsoever from the construction of the bridge, and that the inclusion of such lands within the district, and the levy upon the lands of the particular tax to construct the bridge, is an arbitrary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. City of Lakeland
... ... Legislature ... may not require each parcel of abutting land to pay all ... expense of grading and paving street along its front, ... regardless of special ... Lakeside Special Road and Bridge Dist., 83 Fla. 706, 92 ... So. 687) or in part ( Consolidated Land Co. v ... Tyler, 88 Fla. 14, 101 So. 280), that conflicts with ... applicable organic law ... ...
-
Lee v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
... ... regardless of whether the commerce is by land or water, ... provided the property is not actually in transit. Interstate ... commerce is not ... though benefited, relief will be given in the special case ... Consolidated Land Co. v. Tyler, 88 Fla. 14, 101 So ... 280; Willis v. Special Road & Bridge District, 73 ... ...
-
Martin v. Dade Muck Land Co.
...tax was imposed by a subordinate body which abused its powers in including the island in the taxing district. In Consolidated Land Co. v. Tyler, 88 Fla. 14, 101 So. 280, the taxing district was formed for the sole purpose building a bridge, and it clearly appeared by facts shown that the co......
-
City of Winter Haven v. A. M. Klemm & Son
... ... to enjoin municipal taxation of described land. From adverse ... interlocutory decrees, defendants appeal ... Reversed ... and ... 116, 28 So. 764; Tampa Water Works ... Co. v. Wood, 104 Fla. 306, 139 So. 800; Consolidated ... Land Co. v. Tyler, 88 Fla. 14, 101 So. 280; State v ... City of Avon Park, 108 Fla. 641, ... ...