Edwards v. City of Ocala
| Decision Date | 29 June 1909 |
| Parties | EDWARDS et al. v. CITY OF OCALA. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 12, 1909.
Error to Circuit Court, Marion County; W. S. Bullock, Judge.
Action by the City of Ocala against John L. Edwards and others, as Commissioners of Marion County. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
The statutes of this state do not authorize a city to improve at the expense of the county the streets abutting on county property used for governmental purposes, unless there is a valid contract on the part of the county to pay for the improvement.
The constitutional provision requiring 'a uniform and equal rate of taxation' does not relate to special assessments by municipalities for street improvements.
Under the system of county and municipal government existing in this state, statutory authority given to a city to impose and enforce special assessments for local street improvements will be held not to extend to a county courthouse square located in the city and used for governmental purposes unless an intent to include such property clearly appears from the statute.
The authority given by statute to the city of Ocala 'to regulate, require, and provide for the construction and repair of streets and for the granding and paving of the same, and * * * may order and have such work done, and the amount expended or to be paid therefor, shall be a lien on the lot or lots fronting or abutting on such street as may be increased in value by such improvement, * * * provided that the owners of property on each side of the street * * * shall only be liable for one-third of the actual cost, * * * and the same may be enforced by suit at law or in equity, or the said amount may be recovered against the said owner or owners by suit before any court of competent jurisdiction,' does not contemplate that the city shall acquire a lien on county property used for governmental purposes for the improvement of streets abutting on such property; nor does it contemplate that an action may be brought against the county or the county commissioners for the cost of such improvements, in the absence of some contract obligation on the part of the county upon which a recovery may be had.
Under the statutory authority given to the county commissioners 'to make such orders concerning the care of and the improvement of the corporate property of the county as may be deemed expedient,' the county commissioners alone may authorize improvements of county property to be made at the expense of the county.
COUNSEL Wm. Hocker, for plaintiffs in error.
H. M Hampton and C. L. Sistrunk, for defendant in error.
The city of Ocala obtained a judgment against the members of the board of county commissioners as such for special assessments levied by the city for paving streets abutting on the county courthouse square in the city; such square being the property of the county used for governmental purposes. The validity of this judgment is questioned on writ of error.
The statutes of this state do not authorize the city to improve the streets abutting on county property at the expense of the county in the absence of a valid contract on the part of the county to pay for the improvement. County commissioners are not authorized to expend county funds except for the purposes and in the manner expressly provided by law.
The constitutional provision requiring 'a uniform and equal rate of taxation' does not relate to special assessments by municipalities for street improvements. There is no express provision in the Constitution as to special assessments for local improvements. Under the organic provision that 'the Legislature shall have power to establish and to abolish municipalities, to provide for their government, to prescribe their jurisdiction and powers, and to alter or amend the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitney v. Hillsborough County
... ... Chester ... B. Masslich, of New York City, amicus curiae ... OPINION ... STRUM, ... This is ... a ... 68 So. 459, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 843; Lainhart v. Catts, ... 73 Fla. 735, 75 So. 47; Edwards v. Ocala, 58 Fla ... 217, 50 So. 421; Consolidated Land Co. v. Tyler, 88 ... Fla. 14, 101 So ... ...
-
City of Gainesville v. STATE, DOT
...legislative intent to sanction special assessments on state property must "clearly appear[] from the statute." Edwards v. City of Ocala, 58 Fla. 217, 50 So. 421, 422 (1909). At issue is whether the utility fee is a user fee, as the City contends, rather than either a tax or a special assess......
-
City of Fargo v. Gearey
...v. Leatherman, 99 Ky. 213, 35 S.W. 625; Mt. Sterling v. Montgomery County, 152 Ky. 637, 44 L.R.A.(N.S.) 57, 153 S.W. 952; Edwards v. Ocala, 58 Fla. 217, 50 So. 421; 1 Com. 262; Endlich, Interpretation of Statutes, §§ 161, 163; 1 Kent, Com. 13th ed. 460; Boston Seaman's Friend Soc. v. Boston......
-
Stewart v. De Land-lake Helen Special Road and Bridge Dist. in Volusia County
...26 Fla. 121, 7 So. 464, 8 L. R. A. 55, and State v. Commissioners of Putnam County, 23 Fla. 632, 3 So. 164. As we said in Edwards v. City of Ocala, 58 Fla. 217, 219, 50 So. 421, 422: 'There is no express provision in the Constitution as to special assessments for local improvements,' while ......