Nelson v. City of Fort Lauderdale
| Decision Date | 11 September 1951 |
| Parties | NELSON et al. v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Patterson, Freeman, Richardson & Watson, Jacksonville, George H. Gore, Elbert B. Griffis, Fort Lauderdale, and Giles J. Patterson, Jacksonville, and Saunders, Buckley & O'Connell, and Rogers, Morris & Griffis, all of Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
John U. Lloyd and Thomas O. Berryhill, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.
Account of the similarity of the two cases, the questions raised, and the procedure employed, we have considered this as a companion case to City of Hollywood v. Broward County, 54 So.2d 205, opinion filed this date. Both cases were instituted by bill for declaratory decree. In the last cited case the bill prayed for determination of whether or not the action of the Board of County Commissioners requesting the State Improvement Commission to construct certain roads, bridges and tunnels in different parts of the county at a cost of $15,000,000 and in the manner proposed, was a valid exercise of the power vested in the County Commissioners.
This suit was instituted by taxpayers of the City of Fort Lauderdale by bill for declaratory decree, seeking to have a resolution of the City Commission declared invalid, to enjoin the issue of certain proposed road and bridge bonds until approved by the freeholders, as required by Section 6 Article IX of the Constitution, F.S.A., and to enjoin the City from pledging its share of road and bridge taxes accruing under Section 343.17, F.S.A. for the purpose of aiding in the bridge and tunnel program referred to in City of Hollywood v. Broward County. A motion to dismiss the amended bill of complaint was granted and the plaintiffs appealed.
The point for determination is whether or not the city of Fort Lauderdale is authorized to pledge its share of road and bridge funds accruing under Section 343.17, F.S.A. for a period of 30 years to aid in the bridge and tunnel program throughout the county in cooperation with State Improvement Commission and the State Road Department. Section 343.17, F.S.A. is as follows:
'The board of county commissioners shall levy a tax of not to exceed five mills on a dollar on all property in said county each year for road and bridge purposes; and the same, when collected, shall be paid over to the county depository and kept in a separte fund, which fund shall not be expended for any other purpose than for work on the public roads and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North Shore Bank v. Town of Surfside
...Properties, Inc., v. Peters, Fla.1951, 51 So.2d 786; City of Hollywood v. Broward County, Fla.1951, 54 So.2d 205; Nelson v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 1951, 54 So.2d 207; Bessemer Properties, Inc. v. MacVicar, Fla.1953, 63 So.2d 647, has passed on various phases of the validity of obliga......
-
City of Orlando v. Orange County
...mandatory by amendments. As an additional consideration, the Florida Supreme Court in dictum in the case of Nelson v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.1951, 54 So.2d 207, 208, stated with respect to the statute: 'Casual inspection discloses that the purpose of this act was to provide A dependab......
-
Schott v. State, Through Dept. of Public Safety
... ... person for a period of sixty days upon receiving, from any district, city, or municipal court having traffic jurisdiction, or from any federal court ... ...
-
City of Waldo v. Alachua County
...that must embrace the work to be done on the roads, streets and bridges within the municipalities of the county. In Nelson v. Fort Lauderdale, 54 So.2d 207 (Fla.1951), the Court 'Casual inspection discloses that the purpose of this act was to provide a dependable sum annually for road and b......