State Ex Rel. Gillespie v. Bay County

Decision Date13 November 1933
Citation151 So. 10,112 Fla. 687
PartiesSTATE ex rel. GILLESPIE et al. v. COUNTY OF BAY et al.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

En Banc.

Original proceedings in mandamus by the State, on the relation of J W. Gillespie and others, against the County of Bay and Joe D Holmes and others, as and constituting the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Bay, and others.

Decision in accordance with opinion.

COUNSEL L'Engle & Shands, of Jacksonville, for relators.

J. M Sapp and Joseph W. Bailey, both of Panama City, for respondents.

The alternative writ of mandamus herein issued from this court alleges in substance (par. 2) that the county of Bay in the state of Florida on or about June 1, 1925, 'being duly authorized under the laws of the State of Florida, and in particular by chapter 10367, Laws of Florida, 1925, to issue bonds for the purpose of constructing roads and bridges within said county, made, executed, sold and delivered its 1,000 bonds * * * for the purpose of constructing a road within said county, with the necessary bridges thereon; * * * that said bonds are payable serially over a period of years beginning June 1, 1925, and ending June 1, 1954'; (par. 3) that on July 1, 1925, said county 'being duly authorized under the laws of the State of Florida, and in particular by chapter 10358, Laws of Florida, 1925, to issue bonds (payable July 1, 1955) for the purpose of providing funds for the construction of a bridge over and across the East Arm of St. Andrews Bay at a place known as Long Point in Bay County, Florida, and for the construction of a bridge over and across one arm of St. Andrews Bay at a place known as Sulphur point in Bay County, Florida, made, executed, sold and delivered its 300 bonds under seal bearing said date, each of which bonds was designated 'Toll Bridge Bond', numbered consecutively from 1 to 300, both numbers inclusive, said bonds being payable by their terms on the 1st day of July, A. D. 1955'; (par. 4) that on or about August 1, 1926, said county 'being duly authorized under the laws of the State of Florida, and in particular by section 1531, Revised General Statutes of Florida, 1920, and Chapter 11425, Laws of Florida, 1925, to issue bonds for the purpose of constructing roads and bridges, made, executed, sold and delivered its 1,000 bonds under seal, bearing said date, each of which bonds was designated 'Road and Bridge Bond,' numbered consecutively from 1-A to 100-A, both numbers inclusive, the proceeds of said bonds to be used for the purpose of constructing paved, macadamized or other hard-surfaced roads and necessary bridges. That said bonds mature by their terms over a period of years, commencing August 1, 1936, and ending August 1, 1955'; (par. 5) that on or about January 1, 1927, said county 'being duly authorized under the laws of the State of Florida, and in particular by Chapter 10359, Laws of Florida, 1925, to issue bonds for the purpose of improving, repairing and rebuilding roads and bridges in said County, made, executed, sold and delivered its 200 bonds under seal, bearing said date, each of which bonds was designated 'Road and Bridge Bond,' numbered consecutively from 1 to 200, both inclusive, said bonds being payable by their terms on the 1st day of January, A. D. 1957. That said bonds were issued for the purpose aforesaid.'

All the aforesaid bonds bear interest coupons payable semiannually at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum at stated banks in New York City.

'That in and by each of said bonds described in Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 hereof said Bay County certified, recited and declared that all acts, conditions and things required by the laws of the State of Florida to exist, happen and be performed pursuant to and in the issuance of said bond existed, had happened and had been performed in due and regular time, form and manner as required by law, and that said bonds, together with all other indebtedness of Bay County, Florida, did not exceed any limit prescribed either by the Constitution or the Statutes of the State of Florida.'

'That in and by each of said bonds described in Paragraph 2 hereof said Bay County also represented and recited that said bond was one of a series of bonds issued by Bay County, Florida, for the purpose of raising funds to construct certain hard surfaced roads and bridges within said County, and was issued pursuant to and in full compliance with the laws of the State of Florida, including the provisions of House Bill No. 906, Acts of 1925, approved on the 26th day of May, 1925, said House Bill No. 906 being Chapter 10367, Laws of Florida, 1925.'

'That in and by each of said bonds described in Paragraph 3 hereof said Bay County, Florida, also represented and recited that said bond was one of a series of bonds issued by Bay County, Florida, for the purpose of raising funds for the construction of a toll bridge over and across the East arm of St. Andrews Bay at a place known as Long Point in Bay County, Florida, and for the construction of a bridge over and across one arm of St. Andrews Bay at a place known as Sulphur Point in said County, and was issued pursuant to and in full compliance with the laws of the State of Florida, including the provisions of House Bill No. 138, Acts of 1925, approved on the 17th day of April, 1925, said House Bill No. 138 being Chapter 10358, Laws of Florida, 1925.'

'That in and by each of said bonds described in Paragraph 4 hereof said Bay County, Florida, also represented and recited that said bond was one of a series of bonds issued by Bay County, Florida, for the purpose of raising funds to construct certain hard-surfaced roads and bridges within said County, and was issued pursuant to and in full compliance with the laws of the State of Florida, including the provisions of House Bill No. 116, Acts of the Extraordinary Session of 1925, approved on the 25th day of November, 1925, said House Bill No. 116 being Chapter 11425, Laws of Florida, 1925.'

'That in and by each of said bonds described in Paragraph 5 hereof said Bay County, Florida, also represented and recited that said bond was one of a series of bonds issued by Bay County, Florida, for the purpose of raising funds for the improving, repairing and rebuilding of roads and bridges within said County, and was issued pursuant to and in full compliance with the laws of the State of Florida, including the provisions of Chapter 10359, Laws of Florida, 1925.'

'That prior to the execution and delivery of said bonds described in Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 hereof said bonds were duly validated by decree of the Circuit Court for Bay County, Florida, and a certificate to that effect was duly endorsed on each of said bonds by the Clerk of said Court under the seal of said Court.'

'That coupons numbered 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, respectively, of said bonds described in Paragraph 2 hereof, became due by their terms on June 1, 1931, June 1, 1932, December 1, 1932 and June 1, 1933, and coupons numbered 17 and 18 of said bonds will mature by their terms on December 1, 1933 and June 1, 1934, respectively.'

'That coupons of said bonds described in Paragraph 3 hereof numbered 13, 14, 15 and 16, respectively, became due by their terms on January 1, 1932, July 1, 1932, January 1, 1933 and July 1, 1933, and coupons numbered 17 and 18 of said bonds will respectively mature by their terms on January 1, 1934, and July 1, 1934.'

'That coupons of said bonds described in Paragraph 4 hereof numbered 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, respectively, became due by their terms on August 1, 1930, February 1, 1931, August 1, 1931, February 1, 1932, August 1, 1932, February 1, 1933 and August 1, 1933, and coupons numbered 15 and 16 of said bonds will respectively mature by their terms on February 1, 1934 and August 1, 1934.'

'That coupons of said bonds described in Paragraph 5 hereof numbered 10, 11, 12 and 13, respectively, became due by their terms on January 1, 1932, July 1, 1932, January 1, 1933 and July 1, 1933, and coupons numbered 14 and 15 of said bonds will respectively mature by their terms on January 1, 1934, and July 1, 1934.'

'That interest has accrued on said bonds described in Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 hereof and remains unpaid, and interest will accrue on bonds of said issue now outstanding prior to October 1, 1934, in the amounts set forth in the following schedule:

Description of Number of Aggregate Date of

Issue Coupons Amount Maturity

Bonds described 12 $30,000 6-1-31

in Paragraph 2 13 30,000 12-1-31

hereof, dated 14 30,000 6-1-32

June 1, 1925 15 30,000 12-1-32

16 30,000 6-1-33

17 30,000 12-1-33

18 30,000 6-1-34

Bonds described 13 9,000 1-1-32

in Paragraph 3 14 9,000 7-1-32

hereof, dated 15 9,000 1-1-33

July 1, 1925 16 9,000 7-1-33

17 9,000 1-1-34

18 9,000 7-1-34

Bonds described 8 30,000 8-1-30

in Paragraph 4 9 30,000 2-1-31

hereof, dated 10 30,000 8-1-31

August 1, 1926 11 30,000 2-1-32

12 30,000 8-1-32

13 30,000 2-1-33

14 30,000 8-1-33

15 30,000 2-1-34

16 30,000 8-1-34

Bonds described 10 6,000 1-1-32

in Paragraph 5 11 6,000 7-1-32

hereof, dated 12 6,000 1-1-33

January 1, 1927. 13 6,000 7-1-33

14 6,000 1-1-34

15 6,000 7-1-34"

'That the respondents, constituting the Board of County Commissioners of said County of Bay, as such Board have duly adopted a resolution directing that all moneys collected from the State gasoline tax be applied to the purchase of bonds through the Board of Administration of the State of Florida, and that said resolution has never been vacated, suspended or modified, and so it is that said County of Bay is without funds to pay interest which will accrue upon the bonds hereinabove described or interest thereon which has accrued, except from and out of sums heretofore...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Comm'rs of Sinking Fund of City of Philadelphia v. City of Philadelphia
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • November 19, 1936
    ...unnecessary inconvenience, we may permit the distribution of performance over a period of time. Cf. State ex rel. Gillespie v. Bay County, 112 Fla. 687, 151 So. 10. It is to be remembered that we do not attempt, when we withhold strict enforcement, to detract from the validity of the judgme......
  • Hampton v. A. Duda & Sons, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 3, 1987
    ...a statute unconstitutional is subsequently overruled, the statute is valid from the date of its enactment. State ex rel Gillespie v. Bay County, 112 Fla. 687, 151 So. 10, 22 (1933); Christopher v. Mungen, 61 Fla. 513, 534, 55 So. 273, 280 There is an exception to the general rule of retroac......
  • Jackson Grain Co. v. Lee
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • July 7, 1939
    ... ... M. Lee, as ... Comptroller of the State of Florida, against the Jackson ... Grain Company and others to modify, ... [139 Fla. 93] Appeal from Circuit Court, Leon ... County; J. B. Johnson, Judge ... COUNSEL ... A ... Pickens ... In ... State ex rel. Gillespie et al. v. County of Bay et al., ... 112 Fla. 687, 151 So. 10, ... ...
  • Guerra v. State, Dept. of Labor & Employment Sec.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 15, 1983
    ...671, 673 (Fla.1982); S.R. v. State, 346 So.2d 1018 (Fla.1977); Neal v. Bryant, 149 So.2d 529 (Fla.1962); State ex rel. Gillespie v. County of Bay, 112 Fla. 687, 151 So. 10 (1933). The commission thus has no choice 4 but to amend its existing rule by inserting the omitted requirement of Sec.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT