State v. Thursby
| Decision Date | 14 April 1932 |
| Citation | 140 So. 775,104 Fla. 103 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. GILLESPIE et al. v. THURSBY et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
On petition for rehearing.
Rehearing denied.
For original opinion, see 139 So. 372.
Vocelle & Mitchell, of Vero Beach, and H. A. Lasseter, of Orlando, for relators.
W. J. Gardiner, of Daytona Beach, and H. A. Henderson, of St. Augustine, for respondents.
By petition for rehearing relators contend that the holding of the court in the original opinion was too broad; that, if that ruling stands, it will in all probability deprive relators of ever being able to enforce their constitutional rights to a tax levy, in that hereafter the board of trustees can purposely refuse to make the estimate required by the statute as a condition precedent to the tax levy, so that, before a tax levy can be obtained by mandamus, the time for opening the books for collection of taxes will have elapsed, thereby defeating the writ under the principles stated in the original opinion.
In this case no such default appeared. The principles stated in the original opinion are particularly applicable only to that kind of a case, and the opinion, as in any case decided here, should be limited to the character of case that was before the court. Smitz v. Wright, 64 Fla. 485, 60 So. 225.
The rule is well settled that officers required to perform a duty for the benefit of holders of public securities cannot by their own neglects and defaults defeat the granting of relief when seasonably applied for, and to that rule we still adhere. Board of Com'rs of La Fayette County v. Hadley, 63 Fla. 90, 59 So. 14; State ex rel. Berkemeyer v. Gaines, Assessor, 100 Fla. 1372, 131 So. 115.
Rehearing denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Ex Rel. Klemm v. Baskin
... ... 558; State ex rel ... Aldrich v. Mitchell, 146 So. 207; Humphreys v ... State, 145 So. 858. In the case of State v. Mitchell, ... supra, this court distinguished the previous decisions in ... State ex rel. East Side Bank v. Holloway, 142 So ... 221, and State ex rel. Gillespie v. Thursby, 140 So ... 775, and pointed out why such holdings were not applicable to ... a case like that now before us, which is no different in ... principle from the status of things presented in State ex ... rel. Aldrich v. Mitchell, supra, wherein we held the issuance ... of a peremptory writ was ... ...
-
State v. Mitchell
...State ex rel. Gillespie v. Thursby (Fla.) 140 So. 775, to support their position to the contrary. In the latter-cited case (State ex rel. Gillespie v. Thursby, supra) this court said: 'The rule is well settled that required to perform a duty for the benefit of holders of public securities c......