State v. Hillsborough County

• Decision Date: 23 December 1933
• Citation: 151 So. 712,113 Fla. 345
• Parties: STATE et al. v. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

151 So. 712

113 Fla. 345

STATE et al. v. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

December 23, 1933

Proceeding by the State and others against Hillsborough County and proceeding by Hillsborough County for the validation of a refunding bond issue protested by the State and others. From an order validating the bond issue, the protestors appeal.

Affirmed in part, and reversed in part, with directions. Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsborough County A. V. Long, judge.

COUNSEL

J. Rex Farrior, Charles I. Campbell, and Curtis L. Sparkman, all of Tampa, for appellants.

Henry C. Tillman and John B. Sutton, both of Tampa, for appellee.

OPINION

BUFORD Justice.

This case is before us on an appeal from an order validating a refunding bond issue sought to be issued and floated by Hillsborough county. The state of Florida, through the state's attorney and certain intervening taxpayers protested the validation of the bond issue. The principal grounds of protest were, and are, that certain original issues of bonds now sought to be refunded were illegal and not binding obligations of the county of Hillsborough. These original bonds were issued under the provisions of chapter 10140, Acts 1925.

That act was held valid as to all questions there presented in the case of Whitney v. Hillsborough County, 99 Fla. 628 127 So. 486, 493.

The record also shows that the issue of bonds here attacked were validated by decrees of the circuit court which were not appealed from.

We think that this leaves only one question open for our further consideration.

Answers were filed by the state's attorney on behalf of the state and by certain intervening taxpayers. The two answers are much alike.

The answer of the state's attorney alleges:

'That the bonds described in paragraph 5, under section 1 of said Resolution were issued for the payment of costs for paving improvements in Elizabeth Court Subdivision; that all of the said property in said sub-division was owned by a private corporation with an assessed valuation of said lands of only $5,100.00, whereas County wide bonds were issued for $116.000.00, to pay for said improvements, that being the entire estimated cost thereof; that the streets or roads in said subdivision which were paved in such manner and at such cost are no part of the County Highway System; that said expenditures were inexpedient, unnecessary and not for a county purpose, that the taxpayers in general had no opportunity for voting on said bond issue, that no election was held therefor as required by law; that the issuing of county wide bonds and levying a general tax to pay these bonds is the levy of a tax for the benefit of a private corporation, contrary to article 9, section 7, of the Constitution inasmuch as the improvements were upon roads lying wholly within a private subdivision and upon roads traversing the lands owned entirely by said corporation, to-wit: Elizabeth Court, Inc., a corporation with roads were no part of the County Highway System generally, and not necessary to meet the demands of public travel.

'IX.

'This Respondent alleges that the bonds described in the paragraph marked (6) of section 1, of said Resolution were issued under chapter 10140, Laws of Florida, Acts 1925, to pay the cost of paving improvements on streets in a subdivision known as Bel-Mar; that there were several petitions seeking these improvements originally as follows:

'a. Bel-Mar Unit #1: that all of said property in said subdivision was owned by a private corporation with an assessed valuation of said lands of only $1,200.00, whereas County wide bonds were issued for $67,000.00 to pay for said improvements, that being the entire estimated cost thereof; that the streets or roads in said subdivision which were paved in such manner and at such cost are no part of the County Highway System; that said expenditures were inexpedient, unnecessary and not for a County purpose; that the taxpayers in general had no opportunity for voting on said bond issue, that no election was held therefor as required by law; that the issuing of County wide bonds and levying a general tax to pay these bonds is the levy of a tax for the benefit of a private corporation, contrary to article 9, § 7, of the Constitution of Florida inasmuch as the improvements were upon roads lying wholly within a private subdivision and upon roads traversing the lands owned entirely by said corporation, to-wit: Lloyd-Skinner Development Company, a corporation, which roads were no part of the County Highway System generally, and not necessary to meet the demands of public travel.

'b. Bel-Mar Units #2 and #3; The assessed valuation of all the lands described in these Units was $2,400.00, of in these Unites was $2,400.00, of which Lloyd-Skinner Development Company, a corporation, owned lands of the assessed valuation of $2,300.00 or 23/24 thereof; that the estimated cost of improvements was $142,000.00 and County wide bonds issued in said amounts to pay for said improvements; that the streets or roads in said subdivision which were paved in such manner and at such cost are no part of the County Highway System; that said expenditures were inexpedient, unnecessary and not for a County purpose; that the taxpayers in general had no opportunity for voting on said bond issue, that no election was held therefor as required by law; that the issuing of County wide bonds and levying a general tax to pay these bonds is the levy of a tax for the benefit of a private corporation, contrary to article 9, § 7, of the Constitution of Florida inasmuch as the improvements were upon roads lying wholly within a private subdivision and upon roads traversing the lands owned 23/24 by said corporation, to-wit, Lloyd-Skinner Development Company, a corporation, which roads were no part of the County Highway System generally, and not necessary to meet the demands of public travel.

'c. Bel-Mar Units #4, #5, #6 and #7. The assessed valuation of all the lands described in the original petition seeking paving improvements in these Units was $3,200.00, of which Lloyd-Skinner Development Company, a corporation, owned lands of the assessed valuation of $3,185.00, or approximately 99 1/2% thereof; that the estimated cost of improvements was $356,000.00 and County wide bonds issued in said amount to pay for said improvements; that the streets or roads in said subdivision which were paved in such manner and at such cost are no part of the County Highway System; that said expenditures were inexpedient, unnecessary and not for a County purpose; that the taxpayers in general had no opportunity for voting on said bond issue, that no election was held therefor as required by law; that the issuing of County wide bonds and levying a general tax to pay these bonds is the levy of a tax for the benefit of a private corporation, contrary to article 9, § 7, of the Constitution of Florida inasmuch as the improvements were upon roads lying wholly within a private subdivision and upon roads traversing the lands owned approximately 99 1/2% by said corporation, to-wit, Lloyd-Skinner Development Company, a corporation, which roads were no part of the County Highway System generally, and not necessary to meet the demands of public travel.

'd. Bel-Mar Unit #8. That all of said property in said subdivision was owned by a private corporation with an assessed valuation of said lands of only $1,680.00, whereas County wide bonds were issued for $81,000.00, to pay for said improvements, that being the entire estimated cost thereof; that the streets or roads in said subdivision which were paved in such manner and at such cost are no part of the County Highway System; that said expenditures were inexpedient, unnecessary and not for a County purpose; that the taxpayers in general had no opportunity for voting on said bond issue, that no election was held therefor as required by law; that the issuing of County wide bonds and levying a general tax to pay those bonds is the levy of a tax for the benefit of a private corporation, contrary to article 9, § 7, of the Constitution of Florida inasmuch as the improvements were upon roads lying wholly within a private subdivision and upon roads traversing the lands owned entirely by said corporation, to wit, Lloyd-Skinner Development Company, a corporation, which roads were no part of the County Highway System generally, and not necessary to meet the demands of public travel.

'e. Bel-Mar Unit #9. The assessed valuation of all the lands described in the original petition seeking paving improvements in this Unit was $28,846.72, of which Lloyd-Skinner Development Company, a corporation, owned lands of the assessed valuation of $28,539.84, or approximately 99% thereof; that the estimated cost of improvements was $152,000.00 and County wide bonds issued in said amount to pay for said improvements; that the streets or roads in said subdivision which were paved in such manner and at such cost are no part of the County Highway System; that said expenditures were inexpedient, unnecessary and not for a County purpose; that the taxpayers in general had no opportunity for voting on said bond issue, that no election was held therefor as required by law; that the issuing of County wide bonds and levying a general tax to pay these bonds is the levy of a tax for the benefit of a private corporation, contrary to article 9, § 7, of the Constitution of Florida inasmuch as the improvements were upon roads lying wholly within a private subdivision and upon roads traversing the lands owned approximately 99% by said corporation, to-wit, Lloyd-Skinner Development Company, a corporation, which roads were no part of the County Highway System generally, and not necessary to meet the

...