Merrell v. City of St. Petersburg

• Decision Date: 23 October 1917
• Citation: 76 So. 699,74 Fla. 194
• Parties: MERRELL v. CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

76 So. 699

74 Fla. 194

MERRELL v. CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG.

Florida Supreme Court

October 23, 1917

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pinellas County; O. K. Reaves, Judge.

Petition by the City of St. Petersburg for the validation and confirmation of certain bonds issued or to be issued to secure funds necessary for public improvements, in which Herman Merrell, a citizen and taxpayer, was permitted to intervene and to become a party defendant. Decree for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

The question of whether or not there was irregularity in the organization of a municipality cannot be determined when such question is presented in a collateral attack upon such organization.

In proceedings brought under the provisions of chapter 6868, Laws 1915 of Florida, to validate bonds issued or to be issued by a municipal corporation, the question whether or not there was irregularity in the organization of such municipality is not a proper subject of inquiry.

Upon the showing made in this case, it does not appear that the property intended to be purchased by the city is not for a valid municipal purpose.

The rule is that when a municipality is duly authorized to exercise a particular municipal function, and the manner of the exercise of the authority is not defined by statute but is left to the city council, the courts will not undertake to control the manner of the exercise of the authority by the city council, when no applicable rule of law is violated and the authority is not exceeded or abused.

COUNSEL

Herman Merrell, of St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Lane &amp Dishman, of St. Petersburg, and Bayard S. Cook, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.

OPINION

WEST J.

Pursuant to the provisions of chapter 6868, Laws 1915 of Florida, the appellee, the city of St. Petersburg, filed its petition in the circuit court of the Sixth judicial circuit, praying for the validation and confirmation of certain bonds of said city amounting to $180,000 issued or to be issued for the purpose of securing the funds necessary for various public improvements and for the purchase of certain lots of land in said city to be used, as it is alleged, for municipal purposes.

The petition alleges in detail the various steps taken in the proceedings of the city commissioners and other officers looking to the issue of said bonds, and has attached thereto as exhibits a copy of the ordinance passed by the board of commissioners of the city providing for said bond issue, with proof of its publication, a copy of the notice of the election held for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of the city the question of whether or not the municipality should be authorized and empowered to issue such bonds, with proof of its publication, a copy of the ballot used in such election, together with other exhibits showing the actions taken by the municipal officers in the conduct of such election.

It is recited in the decree of the circuit judge from which this appeal is taken, validating and confirming said bonds, that the state of Florida through the state attorney had filed on answer to said petition confessing the legality of said bond issue.

The appellant, as a citizen, and owner of real estate, and taxpayer of the city of St. Petersburg, filed his petition in said cause praying that he be permitted to intervene and become a party defendant, and that his petition be received and considered as his answer to the petition.

In this petition, which was regarded as an answer in the court below, appellant raises no question about the regularity of the proceedings by said city or its representatives relative to said bond issue, but he says in the first place that the prayer of the petition to validate said bonds should not be granted, because the city of St. Petersburg is not a legally organized municipality, and therefore has no authority to exercise the powers of a municipal corporation. Upon motion this portion of the answer was stricken, and the action of the court below on this motion is the ground for the first assignment of error.

It is averred in the answer that said city undertook to secure a new charter under the provisions of chapter 6940, Acts of 1915, Laws of Florida, but that such undertaking was never completed, and such new charter never became effective because no copy of the proposed charter was recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court, as required by section 13 of said statute. In a stipulation filed by counsel for the respective parties in the court below, the following paragraph on this subject appears:

'It is further stipulated and agreed that said charter was duly recorded in the office of the secretary of state February 26, 1916, in Book 1, of 'Municipal Charters,' and that said charter was recorded in 'Corporation Record No. 1, on pages 263 to 285, inclusive,' in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of Pinellas county, Fla., but not in any other book in said office.'

Even if this does not show a full compliance with the terms of the statute, which is not conceded, the holding of the court below was right, for the reason that the question of whether or not there was...