State Ex Rel. Garland v. City of West Palm Beach
| Decision Date | 05 January 1940 |
| Citation | 141 Fla. 244,193 So. 297 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. GARLAND v. CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
On Rehearing Jan. 26, 1940.
Error to Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; C. E. Chillingworth Judge.
Mandamus proceeding by the State of Florida on the relation of M. E Garland, against the City of West Palm Beach, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, located in Palm Beach County, to enforce payment of principal and interest of certain bonds from moneys held in a sinking fund account. To review a judgment dismissing the cause, plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
On Petition for Rehearing.
COUNSEL Wylie & Warren, of St. Petersburg, and Keen & Allen, of Tallahassee, for plaintiff in error.
Paul W. Potter, of West Palm Beach, for defendant in error.
Robert J. Pleus, of Orlando, amicus curiae.
Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 15772, Acts of 1931, Ex.Sess., and Chapter 16758, Special Acts of 1933 (City Charter) the City of West Palm Beach issued its 'Refunding Bonds of 1936' and its 'Funding Bonds of 1936', which were validated by decree of this Court. State v. City of West Palm Beach, 127 Fla. 849, 174 So. 334. These bonds were all refunding bonds and were issued for the purpose of exchange and to take the place of outstanding bonds. They will hereafter be referred to as the 'new bonds' and the outstanding bonds will be referred to as the 'old bonds'.
The new bonds were issued for 75 per cent of the face of the old bonds, the other 25 per cent being forgiven. They bore interest at a mien rate of 3 1/2 per cent as compared to five and six per cent borne by the old bonds. The new bonds all matured August 1, 1961, while the old bonds matured serially. The new bonds were supported by a sinking fund to pay them when due while the old bonds, being serial bonds, were required to be supported by a tax levy sufficient to pay them as they matured.
Plaintiff in error was the holder of a large block of the old bonds, and refused to exchange them for the new bonds. She brought this action in mandamus against the City of West Palm Beach seeking to enforce payment of the principal and interest of her bonds from moneys held in the sinking fund account raised for the purpose of retiring the new bonds. A motion to quash the alternative writ was granted, the cause was dismissed, and this writ of error was prosecuted.
Under the facts thus detailed, the question presented may be stated as follows: May the holder of old bonds who refuses to exchange them for the new bonds coerce payment of principal and interest thereon from moneys in the sinking fund provided for payment of the principal and interest of the new bonds?
The Court below answered this question in the negative. Plaintiff in error contends that he should have answered in the affirmative because, (1) A duty rested on the City to provide a fund to pay principal and interest on the old bonds as they became due, (2) The 'first come, first served' rule was a part of the obligation of the contract that the holder of old bonds could not be deprived of, and (3) The opinion on rehearing in State ex rel. Lawler v. City of West Palm Beach, 125 Fla. 626, 170 So. 697, 174 So. 737, should not be followed in this case.
In our view, the judgment below might well be affirmed on authority of our opinion on rehearing in the last cited case. The 'first come, first served' rule applies only to general creditors whose claims are supported by the general power of taxation. It does not apply in cases like this where the funds attempted to be reached are earmarked for a particular purpose.
Plaintiff in error is correct in her contention that it was the duty of the City under its contract with her to provide a fund to pay interest and principal of her bonds but if the City failed to do this, she had her remedy at law to compel such a levy. She cannot under facts of this case have her bonds paid from a Special fund arising under Chapter 15772, Acts of 1931, Ex.Sess., and Chapter 16758, Special Acts of 1933, imposed to meet the new bonds. Mandamus is an equitable remedy and under the facts of this case, it would be wholly inequitable to permit plaintiff in error to recover funds earmarked for those who had forfeited a portion of the principal and interest on their bonds.
We have examined the cases relied on by Relator but they do not rule the case at bar. The judgment below is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
On Petition for Rehearing.
On petition for rehearing, it is urged that the opinion filed herein January 5, 1940, is in direct conflict with our opinion and holding in State, ex rel. Georgia Bond and Mortgage Company v. Cone, 137 Fla. 412, 189 So. 47, and Cone v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Page v. City of Fernandina Beach
...conflict with that in the former case." Wood v. Fraser, 677 So.2d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (citing State ex rel. Garland v. City of West Palm Beach, 141 Fla. 244, 247-248, 193 So. 297, 298 (1940)). The conclusion reached in Sebring II is not in "hopeless conflict" with our holding in Fernandin......
-
Lee v. Williams
...of facts and a conclusion must be reached in hopeless conflict with that in the former case." State ex rel. Garland v. City of West Palm Beach, 141 Fla. 244, 248, 193 So. 297, 298 (Fla.), appeal dismissed, 309 U.S. 639, 60 S.Ct. 893, 84 L.Ed. 994 (1940).5 484 U.S. at 481, 108 S.Ct. at 798.6......
-
Mancino v. State, 97-00583
...1995) (on motion for rehearing), quashed on other grounds, 682 So.2d 1085 (Fla.1996); see also State ex rel. Garland v. City of West Palm Beach, 141 Fla. 244, 247-248, 193 So. 297, 298 (1940) (noting that "[f]or one case to have the effect of overruling another, the same questions must be i......
-
Peterson v. State
...that the prior decisions, including Pait v. State, supra, which have been cited have been overruled. See State ex rel. Garland v. West Palm Beach, 141 Fla. 244, 193 So. 287, 298 (1940). We would need much clearer evidence than the Clark opinion provides to reach the conclusion that we are r......