State Ex Rel. Root v. Crandon

• Decision Date: 29 May 1934
• Citation: 155 So. 667,115 Fla. 153
• Parties: STATE ex rel. ROOT v. CRANDON et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

155 So. 667

115 Fla. 153

STATE ex rel. ROOT v. CRANDON et al.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

May 29, 1934

Rehearing Denied June 15, 1934.

Error to Circuit Court, Dade County; Worth W. Trammell, Judge.

Action by the State, on the relation of C.J. Root, against C. H Crandon and others. To review an adverse judgment, relator brings error.

Affirmed.

COUNSEL

Jennings & Watts, of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.

Hudson & Cason and Rudolph Isom, both of Miami, for defendants in error.

OPINION

WHITFIELD Presiding Justice.

This writ of error was taken to a final judgment dismissing an action in mandamus which sought to require payment to the relator bondholder the money of the Biscayne drainage district now in the bond fund of the district; the defense being that the bonds were issued under section 2785(1734) et seq., C. G. L., which provide for paying the bonds only with the proceeds of special assessments; and as such special assessments cannot supply sufficient funds to pay all the bonds, the payments should be made ratably upon all the bonds and not to the relator to the exclusion of the bondholders. The bonds issued by the district were validated by a decree of the circuit court in proceedings had under the statute for validating bonds of governmental units. Section 5106(3296), C. G. L. If the statute did not authorize the district to issue bonds containing an unconditional promise to pay, but limited the authority to issue bonds to be payable only from special assessments on lands in the district, an apparent unconditional promise contained in the bonds is restrained by the provisions of the statute which become a part of each bond, and a validating decree has reference to the limitations of the statute under which the district bonds were issued.

A judicial decree may adjudicate the validity of district bonds within the limitations of the provisions of the statute authorizing the bonds to be issued, but a decree cannot enlarge the statutory authority conferred any more than it could confer authority to issue district bonds. Judicial power may adjudge the validity of district bonds within the statutory limitations authorizing the bonds; but a judicial decree cannot give validity to district bonds issued without or, in excess of, statutory authority; and a decree adjudging the validity of district bonds, as well as the provisions of the bonds, should be interpreted according to the provisions of the authorizing statute.

The statute confers special powers upon the district, and its provisions give no implied authority to the district to issue general obligation bonds.

A statute may validate bonds of a drainage district if a statute could have authorized the bonds when issued and no limitation has intervened, since authority to issue such bonds is derived only from statutes, and legislative authority may be conferred by duly confirming bond issues as well as by authorizing them. The courts have no power to confer authority to issue such bonds, and can only validate such bonds when they were issued under competent legislative authority.

Judicial validation decrees cannot confer authority to issue bonds when such authority has not been conferred by the Constitution or the statutes of the state. Where bonds are issued by a drainage district under division 1, title 9 chapter 21, section 2785(1734) et seq., C. G. L., the statute becomes a part of, and a limitation upon, the provisions of the bonds; and the terms of the bonds so issued are to be interpreted in connection with the authority conferred by the statute. If the statutes governing the district confer only power to issue bonds payable from the proceeds of special assessments, any bonds issued by such district are payable only from the proceeds of special assessments as authorized by the statutes, even though the bonds severally state on their face that they 'are issued in conformity with the laws of the State,' and that 'the full faith, credit and resources of the * * * district are hereby pledged for the punctual payment of the principal and interest of this bond'; and even though the statute, section 2797(1746) C. G. L., enacts that 'bonds issued under this chapter shall be a lien upon the lands embraced...