State v. Haines City

Decision Date16 May 1939
Citation137 Fla. 616,188 So. 831
PartiesSTATE v. HAINES CITY.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Action between the State of Florida and the City of Haines City wherein validation of refunding bonds was sought. From a decree validating the bonds, the State appeals.

Affirmed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Polk County; W. J Barker, Judge.

COUNSEL

L Grady Burton, of Wauchula, for the State.

W Wallace Shafer, of Haines City, for appellee.

OPINION

BUFORD Justice.

The appeal brings for review decree of Circuit Court validating refunding bonds.

Appellant presents six questions for our consideration as follows:

'Question No. 1: Are the bonds of the City of Haines City known as 'Town of Haines City Seven Per Cent Street Paving Bonds' dated July 1, 1920, refundable into unlimited tax bonds?'

'Question No. 2: Are the reversionary clauses in the proposed refunding bonds to refund the bonds of the City Haines City known as 'Town of Haines City Seven Per Cent Street Paving Bonds' dated July 1, 1920, valid in that if such reversion takes place the rate of interest will be seven per cent per annum when the present City Charter and the General Refunding Acts of 1931 both limit the interest rate to 6% per annum?

'Question No. 3: Are the bonds of the City of Haines City known as 'Town of Haines City Six Per Cent Water Works Bonds' 'Town of Haines City Six Per Cent Sewerage Bonds' and 'Town of Haines City Six Per Cent Fire Department Bonds' dated April 1, 1922, refundable into unlimited tax bonds?'

'Question No. 4: Are the bonds of the City of Haines City known as 'City of Haines City Refunding Bonds', dated June 1, 1930, refundable by the proposed refunding bonds sought to be validated by these proceedings?'

'Question No. 5: Does a provision in refunding bonds of the City of Haines City for an increase in interest upon the happening of certain contingencies render such bonds non-negotiable as not being a promise to pay a sum certain?'

'Question No. 6: To what extent will homestead property in the City of Haines City by liable for an ad valorem tax to support the contemplated refunding bonds?'

If the original issue of 'Town of Haines City Seven Per Cent Street Paving Bonds' constituted a valid unlimited tax issue, then the refunding bonds may likewise be secured by unlimited tax as the refunding bonds are but an extension of the original obligation. Bay County v. State, 116 Fla. 656, 157 So. 1; State v. Pensacola, 123 Fla. 331, 166 So. 851; State v. St. Petersburg, 127 Fla. 509, 173 So. 434, 437.

It is true that Section 31 of Chapter 8272, Special Acts of 1919, provided:

'Sec. 31. The Town of Haines City shall have the power to levy on real and personal property within the Town taxes as a rate not to exceed twenty (20) mills on the dollar for the purpose of carrying on the government of the town; and in addition thereto shall have the power to levy such tax as may be necessary to pay the interest on such bonds as the town may from time to time issue in accordance with this Act, and to provide a sinking fund for the redemption of said bonds when same may mature; provided, the levy for such latter purpose shall not exceed ten (10) mills on the dollar. The Town Council shall have the power to levy a further special tax upon the taxable property within the town not to exceed ten [10] mills on the dollar, for the exclusive purpose of opening, widening, paving and improving the streets of the town, and for the purpose of paying for property taken under condemnation proceedings.'

But the Town Council, in adopting Resolution authorizing the issuance of the involved original bonds, provided:

'It is further ordained by the Town Council of Town of Haines City that there is hereby levied annually until the principal and interest of said bonds shall be fully paid upon all the taxable property within the Town of Haines City, County of Polk and State of Florida, an amount sufficient to meet the accuring interest on said bonds and to provide a sinking fund that at maturity of said bonds shall be sufficient to pay the principal sum and interest on said bonds.'

The free-holders, by majority vote, approved the issuance of the bonds and the Circuit Court, by apt decree, validated the issue. Then the Legislature, by Chapter 8963, Special Acts of 1921, provided:

'Section 1. That the ordinances passed by the Town Council of the Town of Haines City, Polk County, Florida, on the 15th day of June, 1920, and approved by the Mayor of said town on the same date, providing for and authorizing the Town Council of the Town of Haines City to borrow the sum of Sixty Thousand Dollars for the purpose of paving and otherwise improving the streets of the Town of Haines City, to provide for an election to authorize the issuance of the bonds of said town in the said sum of Sixty Thousand Dollars, to secure said loan and to provide for the election of three members of the Board of Public Works, the notice of said election, the appointment of inspectors and clerk, the canvass of the votes, the canvass of the returns and the orders and resolutions thereon, and each and every step taken in the said proceedings calling said election held on the 20th day of July, 1920, in the said Town of Haines City in pursuance of said ordinances proposing said bond issue and authorizing said election heretofore mentioned, and every act of the said inspectors, clerk, Town Council and Mayor relative thereto, and all actions and proceedings on the part of the Bond Trustees elected at said bond election with respect to the issuance and sale of said bonds, be, and the same are hereby, legalized and declared to be valid and binding in every respect, and all irregularities in said proceedings for the calling and holding of said election, and every act of the said inspectors, clerk, Town Council and the Mayor relative thereto are hereby legalized and declared to be valid in every respect, and the result of said election as declared by the said inspectors and by the Town Council are hereby legalized and confirmed, including the election of the Board of Public Works.

'Sec 2. That the said bonds of the said Town of Haines City made, executed and delivered in pursuance of said election, same being sixty (60) in number, of the denomination...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Sullivan v. Volusia County Canvassing Bd.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 2, 1996
    ...Augustine, 42 Fla. 287, 29 So. 421, 431 (Fla.1900) (quoting Judge Cooley, Constitutional Limitations). See also, State v. Haines City, 137 Fla. 616, 188 So. 831 (Fla.1939); County of Orange v. Webster, 546 So.2d 1033 (Fla.1989); County of Palm Beach v. State, 342 So.2d 56 (Fla.1976); Givens......
  • State v. Lafayette County
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • January 18, 1952
    ...without authority, provided the Legislature could have authorized the issuance of the bonds in the first place. See State v. Haines City, 137 Fla. 616, 188 So. 831, and Posey v. Wakulla County, 148 Fla. 115, 3 So.2d Affirmed. SEBRING, C. J., and CHAPMAN and ROBERTS, JJ., concur. ...

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