State Ex Rel. Supreme Forest Woodmen Circle v. Snow
| Decision Date | 11 December 1933 |
| Citation | 151 So. 393,113 Fla. 241 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. SUPREME FOREST WOODMEN CIRCLE v. SNOW et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Broward County; C. E. Chillingworth, Judge.
Mandamus proceeding by the State, on the relation of the Supreme Forest Woodmen Circle, a corporation, against Russell G. Snow and others, as and constituting the Board of Public Instruction for the County of Broward, and others. To review a final judgment in favor of the respondents after the demurrer of the Board of Public Instruction to the alternative writ was sustained, and a motion by the other defendants to quash the alternative writ was granted, the petitioner brings error.
Judgment reversed.
L. O. Casey, of Hollywood, for plaintiff in error.
Baxter & Walton and R. R. Saunders, all of Fort Lauderdale, for defendants in error.
Alternative writ of mandamus was issued in this cause by the circuit court of Broward county directed to the board of public instruction, the board of county commissioners, the tax assessor, and the tax collector of said county, commanding the levy, assessment, collection, and appropriation of a tax to redeem bonds and coupons held by relator against special tax school districts numbered 2, 3, and 4 of Broward county.
A demurrer to the alternative writ on the part of the members of the board of public instruction was sustained and a motion to quash the alternative writ on the part of the tax assessor, tax collector, and board of county commissioners was granted. Final judgment was entered for respondents defendants in error here. This writ of error was prosecuted to the final judgment.
The demurrer and motion to quash raise this question: May an alternative writ of mandamus seeking to enforce payment of past-due principal and interest on bonds of special tax school districts Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of Broward county, command the levy, assessment, and collection of a tax sufficient to pay such principal and interest maturing the past four years all of which is due and unpaid, or must such assessment and collection be limited to the current year? In either event can the alternative writ command the levy, assessment, and collection of said tax or must it be limited to the assessment and must it apply to all bond and couponholders of a class or may it apply only to individual bond and couponholders?
The alternative writ discloses that the relator owns interest coupons against special tax school district No. 2 maturing in 1931 and 1932, on two different bond issues, aggregating $1,890. He also owns bonds on which the principal aggregating $24,000 maturing $6,000 per annum for the years 1929, 1930, 1931, and 1932, and interest coupons maturing in 1930, 1931, and 1932, aggregating $19,690 against special tax school district No. 3 which are due and unpaid. It is further shown that he owns interest coupons aggregating $13,245 maturing in 1930, 1931, and 1932, principal aggregating $12,000, maturing $3,000 annually for the years 1929, 1930, 1931, and 1932 against special tax school district No. 4 which is due and unpaid.
The alternative writ discloses that the total past due and unpaid indebtedness of said special tax school districts Nos. 2, 3, and 4, referred to herein, as evidenced by bonds and coupons is as follows: Special tax school district No. 2, $62,760, special tax school district No. 3, $162,950, and special tax school district No. 4, $69,830. It appears that no taxes were levied and collected to pay interest and sinking fund on any of these bonds or coupons for the years 1929, 1930, 1931, and that the writ seeks for 1932 to enforce the levy and collection of a tax for interest and sinking fund for all four said years.
The bonds and interest-bearing coupons brought in question were issued under section 17, article 12, of the Constitution. Some of them were issued subsequent to the amendment of this section in 1924, which in effect authorizes special tax school districts to issue bonds for the exclusive use of public free schools within the district on the majority vote of the freeholders. It also provides that all such bonds shall be payable within thirty years in annual installments each annual installment to be not less than 3 per cent. of the total issue. It further provides a tax for this purpose and prohibits its use for any other purposes. The 1924 amendment referred to had for its main purpose the removal of the millage limitation and the requirement that all bonds issued thereunder be payable within thirty years.
Section 593, Revised General Statutes of 1920, section 735, Compiled General Laws of 1927, outlines the details for issuing bonds under section 17 of article 12 and among other things requires that the board of county commissioners levy annually a tax on all real and personal property, railroad, telegraph and telephone...
To continue reading
Request your trial