St. Lucie Estates, Inc. v. Ashley

• Decision Date: 18 May 1932
• Citation: 141 So. 738,105 Fla. 534
• Parties: ST. LUCIE ESTATES, Inc., et al. v. ASHLEY et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

141 So. 738

105 Fla. 534

ST. LUCIE ESTATES, Inc., et al. v. ASHLEY et al.

Florida Supreme Court

May 18, 1932

En Banc.

Suit by Edna M. Ashley, etc., and others, wherein the St. Lucie Estates, Inc., and others, intervened. Decree for complainants, and the interveners appeal.

Affirmed.

ELLIS and BROWN, JJ., dissenting. Appeal from Circuit Court, Martin County; Elwyn Thomas, judge.

COUNSEL

Dame &amp Rogers, of Ft. Pierce, for appellants.

Sumner & Sumner, of Ft. Pierce, for appellees.

OPINION

TERRELL J.

The record in this case discloses that there was lately pending in this court a quo warranto proceeding instituted by the Attorney General of Florida, wherein appellants, with others were corelators, and the city of Stuart was respondent. The purpose of this proceeding was to test the validity of the incorporation of the city of Stuart and to show that the incorporation of the lands of complainants in said municipality was violative of their constitutional rights. While that cause was pending here, the city of Stuart through its officers and attorneys, approached some of the corelators and proposed a settlement and compromise of their municipal taxes, whereby the city of Stuart agreed to release the corelators from the payment of said lands for the said years on condition that corelators would dismiss their writ of error in the quo warranto proceeding. Such a compromise was agreed to, and the city of Stuart adopted its resolution remitting the said taxes and canceling said certificates. The corelators also dismissed their writ of error in the quo warranto proceeding.

At this juncture, appellees filed their bill of complaint seeking to nullify the resolution of the city of Stuart remitting said taxes and canceling said tax certificates and to restrain any further proceedings on the part of the city tending to carry out said resolution. A temporary restraining order was granted, appellants were permitted to intervene, answer was filed, and, on final hearing, the temporary restraining order was made permanent. From that decree, this appeal was prosecuted.

Numerous errors are assigned, but the pith of the whole controversy is resolved by a determination of the validity of the agreement entered into between the corelators and the city of Stuart for remitting taxes and canceling tax certificates against the lands of corelators.

Appellants in effect contend that the city of Stuart, in agreeing to cancel their (appellant's) taxes on condition that appellants abandon and dismiss their quo warranto proceeding admitted that said assessments were illegal, and that, since appellants had in fact dismissed their writ of error in said quo warranto proceeding, to which there could be no legal impediment, it is now the legal and moral duty of the city to carry out its terms of the agreement by canceling the taxes and certificates as agreed to. There is no claim that the agreement was authorized by statute or by municipal ordinance pursuant to statute.

The power of taxation inheres in the state as an attribute of sovereignty. The power to tax, to exempt from taxation, to remit taxes wrongfully collected, or to compromise taxes, may be delegated to municipality, but none of these powers are inherent in it. The power to tax does not include the power to exempt, remit, or compromise taxes, as it is competent to confer such powers...