Marshall v. State
| Decision Date | 21 November 1924 |
| Citation | 88 Fla. 329,102 So. 650 |
| Parties | MARSHALL, Clerk of Circuit Court, etc. v. STATE ex rel. SARTAIN et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
En Banc.
Error to Circuit Court, Bay County; D. J. Jones, Judge.
Proceeding by State of Florida on relation of C. M. Sartain and others for mandamus to be directed to W. H. Marshall, as clerk of Circuit Court of Bay County, Florida, and ex officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Bay County. From judgment granting peremptory writ, defendant brings error.
Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
In absence of specific statutory authority county warrants cannot be issued at discount to pay debt or to borrow money. In the absence of specific statutory authority, county warrants cannot be issued at a discount to pay a debt, or for the purpose of borrowing money.
Carter & Yonge, of Pensacola, and Harlon L Stewart, of Panama City, for plaintiff in error.
J. R Wells, Jr., of Gainesville, and E. Dykes, of Panama City, for defendants in error.
In November, 1920, the county commissioners of Bay county entered into contract with Sartain, Dobson, and Reese to reconstruct the courthouse of said county for an agreed sum. The work was completed, accepted, and final settlement had when it was found that there was a balance due the contractors of $12,000. The commissioners paid the contractors $4,000 cash. The contractors transferred $2,000 of said claim to Frank Mosley, and the commissioners then agreed to sell and deliver to the contractor, at private sale, sufficient county warrants at 90 cents on the dollar to satisfy the contractors' claim, now reduced to $6,000; said warrants having been issued under chapter 8615, Sp. Acts of 1921, Laws of Florida.
The contractors agreed to accept said warrants in satisfaction of their claim, and the commissioners ordered that they be immediately signed, attested, and sealed by the clerk, W. H. Marshall, and delivered to the contractors. The clerk refused to obey the order of the commissioners, when Bay county, joined by the contractors, brought suit in mandamus to compel compliance with the said order. Demurrer and motion to quash the alternative writ were overruled, peremptory writ was granted, and writ of error taken to this court.
Payment is resisted on the ground that the county is improperly made a party to the suit; that, under chapter 8615, Sp. Acts of 1921, Laws of Florida, the warrants sought to be delivered cannot be sold at private sale at 90 cents on the dollar, plus accrued interest in payment of a debt due; that, if so sold and issued, the transaction will be usurious and the warrants bear a greater rate than 8 per cent., the maximum allowed under the law, and that the writ requires the performance of an illegal act, the claim not having been audited and proper allowances made for deficiencies, as the law directs.
Under the facts, as detailed in this case, the joining of Bay county with Sartain, Dobson, and Reese, as a party relator in the petition for the alternative writ, was mere surplusage and does not constitute reversible error.
On the question of a private sale of these warrants, chapter 8615, Sp. Acts of 1921, among other things, provides:
'That all of said interest-bearing time warrants shall be sold either at private sale or to the highest bidder at public sale, and, in case the said warrants are sold to the highest bidder at public sale, they shall be advertised for sale in a newspaper published in Bay county and in a financial publication published in some financial center of the United States for at least two weeks, as the county commissioners may decide and direct.'
We think that, in view of the foregoing and the general trend of the decided cases affecting the situation, the Legislature must have contemplated that if a private sale was made the warrants should being par; but that if par could not be realized at such a sale they should then be sold, after advertizing, to the highest bidder as the statute directs.
In the absence of specific statutory authority warrants cannot be issued at a discount to pay a debt, or for the purpose of borrowing money. Erskine v. Steele County, 4 N. D. 339, 60 N.W. 1050, 28 L. R. A. 645; Clark v. City of Des Moines, 19 Iowa, 199, 87 Am. Dec. 423; 19 R. C. L. 1036; 28 Cyc. 1597, 1569; 5 McQuillin on Municipal Corporations, § 2224; Arnott v. City of Spokane, 6...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of Public Instruction, Putnam County v. Wright
...they are payable only when, and if, there is sufficient money in the particular fund on which they are drawn. See Marshall v. State ex rel. Sartain, 88 Fla. 329, 102 So. 650; National Bank of Jacksonville v. Duval County, 45 Fla. 496, 34 So. As appears on their face, the obligations in ques......
-
State v. Family Bank of Hallandale
...for its purpose. This Court has held that there is a "vast distinction" between warrants and bonds. Marshall v. State ex rel. Sartain, 88 Fla. 329, 332, 102 So. 650, 651 (1924). A bond is basically an acknowledgement of indebtedness and a promise to pay, while a warrant is an order or direc......
-
Leon County v. State
...Constitution. Stated another way, the argument is that under the authorities ( Borland v. Towles, 69 Fla. 125, 67 So. 640; Marshall v. State, 88 Fla. 329, 102 So. 650) existing prior to the adoption of amended section 6 article 9 of the Constitution, the board of county commissioners of Leo......
- Branford State Bank v. Howell Co.