State v. City of Manatee
| Decision Date | 11 October 1939 |
| Citation | 140 Fla. 248,191 So. 529 |
| Parties | STATE v. CITY OF MANATEE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Proceeding between the State of Florida and the City of Manatee for the validation of an issue of refunding bonds. From a decree validating the issue, the State of Florida appeals.
Affirmed.
BROWN Justice, dissenting. Appeal from Circuit Court Manatee County; George W. Whitehurst, judge.
Clyde H. Wilson, of Sarasota, for the State.
W. L Kimball, of Bradenton, for appellee.
This appeal is from a final decree of the Circuit Court validating a single issue of refunding bonds to supplant several issues of original bonds of the City of Manatee, Florida. A proceeding in bankruptcy had been held for the purpose of composing the city's bonded indebtedness; a plan had been affected and approved by decree of the Federal Court which is admitted to have been very beneficial to it. The validating decree was predicated on a resolution of the City authorizing the refunding bonds which was adopted pursuant to its charter, Chapter 6722, Sp.Acts of 1913, as amended by Chapter 10891, Special Acts of 1925, and Section 6, Article 9 of the Constitution, as amended, and Chapter 15772, Acts of 1931 Ex.Sess.
It is contended that the decree below should be reversed because it is proposed to issue the refunding bonds supported by an unlimited tax levy without an approving vote of the taxpayers as required by Section 6 of Article 9 of the Constitution when some of the original bonds were issued under a limited tax levy. City of Fort Myers v. State, 129 Fla. 166, 176 So. 483, is relied on to support this contention.
It is quite true that some of the original bonds were issued pursuant to Chapter 6722, Sp.Acts of 1913 (City Charter), which carried limited taxing provisions to support them and that the latter act was amended by Chapter 10891, Special Acts of 1925, which removed the tax limitation and provided an unlimited tax to support all the outstanding bonds of the City. It was competent for the legislature to do this. The factual conditions in this case are materially different from those in the Fort Myers case.
In the case at bar, it appears that all the original bonds issued prior to the effective date of Chapter 10891, Special Acts of 1925, were issued by an approving vote of the freeholders, while in the Fort Myers case, it did not appear that the bonds were so issued. In the Fort Myers case, it appears that the legislature passed an act, Chapter 18532, Special Acts of 1937, limiting the supporting tax to that in effect when the bonds were issued. These facts would distinguish the Fort Myers case from the case at bar.
In our view, the case at bar is ruled by State v. Special Tax School District No. 7-B, Santa Rosa County, 131 Fla. 603, 179 So. 683; State v. City of Melbourne, Fla., 185 So. 850; State v. City of Arcadia, Fla., 187 So. 771; and State v. City of Inverness, Fla., 188 So. 767. All of these cases contain points very similar to those in the case at bar and in some of them the points are identical.
In Municipal bond refunding cases, statutes may under Section 8 Article VIII of the Constitution, remove statutory limits on taxation for bond paying purposes so that refunding bonds issued under Section 6, Article IX of the Constitution, may not be affected by tax limitations in force when the bonds being refunded were issued. In such cases, bondholders are not injured by a tax limit removal and the municipalities and taxpayers are bound by the sovereign power of the law in removing the bond tax limit. Section 8, Article VIII of the Constitution, gives the Legislature power to prescribe the jurisdiction and powers of municipalities 'and to alter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. City of Fort Myers
...the Manatee case. Except for the provisions of Chapter 18532, supra, we would unhesitatingly hold that this case is ruled by the City of Manatee case, supra, finds support in State v. City of Inverness, 137 Fla. 629; 188 So. 767; State v. City of Punta Gorda, Fla., 197 So. 734; State v. Cit......
-
State v. City of Auburndale
...supported by a limited tax and they were approved by vote of the freeholders. This Court has approved bonds so issued. State v. City of Manatee, 140 Fla. 248, 191 So. 529; State v. City of Palmetto, 140 Fla. 252, 191 531. It is next contended that some of the refunding bonds are violative o......
-
State v. City of Punta Gorda
... ... 289; State ex rel ... Woman's Catholic Order of Foresters v. City of Fort ... Myers, Fla., 196 So. 705, opinion filed June 7, 1940, ... and cases cited in those opinions ... We do ... not overlook the holding of this Court in State v. City ... of Manatee, Fla., 191 So. 529. In that case a limited ... tax had been removed but a composition agreement had been ... entered into and under it the refunding bonds were issued at ... [197 So. 736] ... a rate more attractive than the original bonds ... It ... follows that the decree must be ... ...
-
Hendry v. Atlantic Dredging & Const. Co.
... ... under and through drainage works of the Everglades Drainage ... District of the State of Florida; and that the title thereto ... was vested by statute in the Trustees of the Internal ... ...