Paul Bros. v. Long Branch and Lakeside Special Road and Bridge Dist.
| Decision Date | 05 June 1922 |
| Citation | 92 So. 687,83 Fla. 706 |
| Parties | PAUL BROS. et al. v. LONG BRANCH AND LAKESIDE SPECIAL ROAD AND BRIDGE DIST. et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied July 5, 1922.
Suit by Paul Bros. and others against the Long Branch and Lakeside Special Road and Bridge District and R. L. Dowling and others, as members constituting the Board of Supervisors of such district. From a decree entered therein, plaintiffs appeal.
Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
Statute creating special road and bridge district held arbitrary and oppressive, and unconstitutional. Chapter 8888, Acts of 1921 purporting to create a special road and bridge district in Clay county, is so arbitrary and oppressive in the tax burdens it imposes upon the lands in the district for road purposes that it is a palpable abuse of the police and taxing powers of the state, that will inevitably deprive the landowners of their property in violation of the state and federal Constitutions, which makes the entire act invalid and unenforceable.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Clay County; George Couper Gibbs, judge.
Axtell & Rinehart and Gov. Hutchinson, all of Jacksonville, for appellants.
McCollum & Clark, of Jacksonville, for appellees.
This suit was brought under the statute to validate $1,000,000 of 6 per cent. bonds designed to be issued for the construction of roads in a district under chapter 8888, Acts of 1921 which purports to create and establish the Long Branch and Lakeside special road and bridge district, in Clay county Fla. The validity of the statute is challenged. An appeal was taken from a decree rendered by the circuit judge, validating the bonds.
It appears by the act that the district comprises about 150,000 acres of land, which it is shown was in 1920 assessed at $353,920. The provisions of the act are too voluminous to be set out here.
Even if chapter 8888 does not contain distinct and unrelated provisions upon more than one subject and matter properly connected therewith, in violation of section 16, art. 3, of the Constitution, and does not violate sections 20 and 21 article 3, of the Constitution in the provisions regulating the practice of courts of justice, if not also in other provisions, it is obvious that the essential provisions of the act are so arbitrary and oppressive, as tax burdens upon property of small value considered with reference to the multiplied enormous special assessment authorized to be made against it, as that the statute is a palpable abuse of the police and taxation powers of the state, that will inevitably deprive the landowners of their property...
To continue reading
Request your trial