Stewart v. City of De Land
| Decision Date | 09 November 1954 |
| Citation | 75 So.2d 584 |
| Parties | Tom B. STEWART, Appellant, v. CITY OF DE LAND, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Tom B. Stewart, De Land, for appellant.
Glen W. Martin, James H. Sweeney, Jr., and John R. Godbee, Jr., De Land, for appellee.
In July 1954 the City Commission of the City of De Land adopted an emergency ordinance authorizing the issuance of a fixed amount of water and sewer revenue certificates payable solely from revenues derived from the operation of the water and sewer systems in prescribed sums over a period of 25 years. July 20, 1954 petition was filed in the Circuit Court to validate said certificates and an order to show cause was entered and published as required by law. Proof of publication was filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court and service thereof was accepted by the State Attorney.
On the return day noted in the order to show cause, appellant moved for and was permitted to intervene. He filed and answer and an amended answer. After several continuances a hearing was held by the court, the city offered its evidence, but no evidence was offered by the intervener. Argument was heard and a final decree was entered, validating the proposed water and sewer revenue certificates. A rehearing was denied and the intervener appealed.
Numerous questions are urged for our determination but most of them may be combined for disposition. It is first contended that the Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction of the cause because the proceeding was not filed 'in chancery', that the order to show cause required the parties to appear at a place other than the courthouse, and that the Clerk of the Circuit Court did not cause copy of the order to show cause to be published.
There is no merit to any of these contentions. Chapter 75, F.S. 1953, F.S.A., defines the procedure for validating bonds and certificates of indebtedness. It places jurisdiction in the 'Circuit courts of this State', F.S.A. § 75.01, and has no specification as to whether the proceeding should be brought 'in law' or 'in chancery.' It is further significant that Chapter 75 does not require the order to show to set the hearing at the courthouse but it may be held at any place designated in the circuit. The record shows that the order to show cause was published in the manner provided by law, that it gave the required notice of hearing and that it was duly filed and recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court. After all is said, appellant was present at the hearing, took part in it but offered no evidence to support his contention. He is not in position to complain.
It is next contended that the City of DeLand is without power under its charter or other legislative authority to issue water and sewer revenue certificates, payable solely from revenues derived from said facilities.
In our view, this contention is refuted by the city charter of De Land, Chapter 11466, Special Acts of 1925, Section 21 thereof. Sections 167.57 and 167.73 F.S.A. confer the same power, and in Section 51 of the city charter a like power is conferred when necessary to promote the public health and general welfare of the city. The ordinance providing for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Long v. Atlanta & West Point R. Co.
...vote of a public body is required, it means that all of the members who were present voted and none dissented. Stewart v. City of De Land, 75 So.2d 584, 586 (Fla.1954); Gumm v. City of Lexington, 247 Ky. 139, 56 S.W.2d 703, 705 (1933); Coxon v. Inhabitants of City of Trenton, 78 N.J.L. 26, ......