Rawls v. City of Miami

• Decision Date: 29 June 1921
• Citation: 89 So. 351,82 Fla. 65
• Parties: RAWLS v. CITY OF MIAMI et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

89 So. 351

82 Fla. 65

RAWLS v. CITY OF MIAMI et al.

Florida Supreme Court

June 29, 1921

Suit by C. C. Rawls against the City of Miami, W. P. Smith, Mayor and other city officials. From an order denying an injunction and sustaining demurrer to bill, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Demurrer admits facts well pleaded. A demurrer to a bill in chancery admits, for the purpose of the demurrer, all allegations of fact well pleaded.

Prosecution not restrained in absence of necessity for protection against oppressive and vexatious litigation. Equity will not restrain a prosecution at law, where the question is the same at law and in equity, no apparent necessity existing to protect complainant from oppressive and vexatious litigation.

Bill to restrain enforcement of ordinance not entertained, where not based on recognized head of equity jurisdiction. A bill in equity to restrain the enforcement of a city ordinance to regulate plumbing in the city will not be entertained, where the bill rests upon no recognized head of equity jurisdiction.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; H. Pierre Branning, judge.

COUNSEL

Carson & Botts and Price, Price & Small, all of Miami, for appellant.

S. P Robineau and Bart A. Riley, both of Miami, for appellees.

OPINION

ELLIS J.

The appellant sought an injunction against the city of Miami and certain officials to restrain the municipality from enforcing a certain ordinance entitled 'An ordinance to regulate plumbing in the city of Miami,' adopted in June, 1919 and numbered 294.

It is alleged that the complainant is the owner of certain lots in the city of Miami; that he is now building and contemplates the erection of other buildings upon the property, and making additions to building already located upon the lots; that the expenditure for such improvements will cost approximately the sum of $20,000; that much plumbing will have to be done in connection with the work which is being done and that which is under contemplation, and if the provisions of the ordinance are enforced the necessary plumbing will cost approximately $2,400, or about twice as much as is necessary to have the work done in a thorough workmanlike manner, in accordance with sanitary laws, and in a manner that would fully and entirely protect the health of the tenants in the building and the public generally; that the provisions of the ordinance require nothing to be done which will promote, secure, or influence the public health, but increases the burden upon the taxpayers of the city for the purpose of maintaining a large and unnecessary corps of officers and employees to carry out the useless provisions of the ordinance; that the complainant is a taxpayer and citizen of the city, and is particularly affected by the ordinance because of the work of improving his property and the contemplated installation of a system of water service and sewerage in the buildings; that the ordinance is 'unreasonable, void and unconstitutional' for many reasons set out in full in the bill, and covering about 12 pages of typewritten matter.

A demurrer to the bill was interposed by the defendants, which was sustained, and the application for a temporary injunction denied. The complainant took an appeal from that order.

The errors assigned are that the court erred in denying the application for a temporary...