Tapers v. Pichard

• Decision Date: 18 June 1936
• Citation: 169 So. 39,124 Fla. 549
• Parties: TAPERS v. PICHARD et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

169 So. 39

124 Fla. 549

TAPERS v. PICHARD et al.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

June 18, 1936

Suit by John M. Tapers against A. Pichard, chairman, C. M. Ausley and others, as members of and constituting the Board of Commissioners of Leon County, and another. From the judgment John M. Tapers appeals.

Affirmed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Leon County; E. C Love, Judge.

COUNSEL

Guyte P. McCord, of Tallahassee, for appellant.

William Blount Myers, of Tallahassee, for appellees.

OPINION

TERRELL Justice.

Appellees as the board of county commissioners of Leon county, entered into a contract with T. A. Monk, Inc., to construct a new jail, the consideration actuating the contract was $98,350 to be paid with 'certificates of payment' issued by the county commissioners to the contractor every two weeks as the work progresses. The 'certificates of payment' were payable from the jail building fund as and when collected, and had to be carried by the contractor or discounted by him.

The jail building fund was created by appellees imposing a tax of five mills for five consecutive years on all the taxable property of the county, pursuant to section 1556, Revised General Statutes of 1920, section 2384, Compiled General Laws of 1927. Such a tax was estimated to raise approximately $20,000 per year, being ample to liquidate the contract. It was also provided by resolution of appellees that, if any deficit occurred in this fund making it insufficient to meet the provisions of the contract, such deficit would be made good by moneys received by the county from the racing commission.

Appellant filed his bill of complaint in the circuit court of Leon county seeking to enjoin the letting and execution of this contract. An application for temporary restraining order was then made. The chancellor denied this application and dismissed the bill of complaint. This appeal is from both decrees.

It is first contended that the contract is invalid because it embraces an item for discount, interest, or carrying charges on the certificates of payment executed by appellees and delivered to the contractor for constructing the jail.

The certificates of payment were noninterest bearing, and, as heretofore stated, were payable from the jail building fund created under section 2384, Compiled General Laws of 1927, which authorizes boards of county commissioners, when they deem it necessary to erect or repair the court house or jail, to give notice to that effect and to levy a building tax of not exceeding five mills per annum for not more than five consecutive years on all the taxable property in the county, said tax to be in lieu of all other county building taxes.

No interest was permitted by the contract to be added to the face of the certificates of payment because all carrying charges accruing on them from the time they were expected to be issued to the estimated time of their payment were calculated and included in their face as costs when issued. These charges amounted to a total of $8,650, and were included in the consideration actuating the contract when let.

It was the inclusion of this ammount in the consideration for the contract as carrying charges on the certificates of payment which appellant contends was without legal authority and had the effect of invalidating the contract.

In Borland v. Towles, 69 Fla. 125, 67 So. 640, a parallel question was presented to this court and was resolved against the contention of appellant. It is quite true that the opinion does not directly discuss this question, but the pleadings show that it was presented, and, in finding that no abuse of discretion was shown, we may be assured that it was adjudicated, since it was the primary...