State ex rel. Davis v. Jumper Creek Drainage Dist.

• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Citation: State ex rel. Davis v. Jumper Creek Drainage Dist., 14 So.2d 900, 153 Fla. 451 (Fla. 1943)
• Decision Date: 30 July 1943
• Parties: STATE ex rel. DAVIS et al. v. JUMPER CREEK DRAINAGE DIST. et al.

14 So.2d 900

153 Fla. 451

STATE ex rel. DAVIS et al. v. JUMPER CREEK DRAINAGE DIST. et al.

Florida Supreme Court

July 30, 1943

Rehearing Denied Sept. 20, 1943.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sumter County; J. C. B. Koonce judge.

Erle B Askew and Clair A. Davis, both of St. Petersburg, for appellants.

Carroll W Fussell, of Bushnell, and C. A. Boswell, Jr., of Bartow, for appellees.

ADAMS, Justice.

From a judgment dismissing an action of mandamus, for want of proper parties respondent, relator appeals.

Jumper Creek Drainage District was formed pursuant to the general drainage law of Florida. The benefits to the land in the district assessed exceeded a million dollars. Bonds totaling nearly a half million were issued. The total tax levied and prorated against the property was nearly a million dollars. The supervisors of the district allowed certain property owners to pay off and discharge the total tax assessed against their property.

Ninety-eight per cent of the payment of this tax was made with outstanding and past due bonds of the district at par and the remainder in cash. Relator is the holder of past due bonds of the district and sought to compel the levy of an additional tax, not in excess of the assessed benefits, on all the lands in the district including the lands purportedly released. The circuit judge dismissed the action because the persons holding title to the released lands were not made parties. This ruling presents the only question for us to decide.

The drainage district is a creature of the general statutes (Chap. 6458 Gen. Laws 1913, Chap. 298, F.S.1941, F.S.A.§ 298.01 et seq.) and the management of the district is placed in a board of supervisors. The creative statute is a grant of power and the supervisors of the district must look entirely to the statute for their authority All persons and their privies dealing with the supervisors are charged with notice of the limitation of authority vested in the officials. Relators' rights were fixed by law when the bonds were first negotiated. § 41, Chapter 6458, Acts 1913. The action of the supervisors in accepting the bonds and releasing the total tax was contrary to law and of no effect. See First State Bank of Morenci v. Little River Drainage District, 122 Fla. 304, 165 So. 48. The board of supervisors are the legal representatives of all the land owners in the district. They are also trustees of all assets allocated by law to pay...