Utley v. City of St. Petersburg

• Decision Date: 01 October 1932
• Citation: 144 So. 57,106 Fla. 882
• Parties: UTLEY et al. v. CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

144 So. 57

106 Fla. 882

UTLEY et al. v. CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG.

Florida Supreme Court

October 1, 1932

Rehearing Denied Oct. 25, 1932.

En Banc.

Suit by Daniel T. Utley and others against the City of St. Petersburg. From an order dismissing the bill of complaint, complainants appeal.

Affirmed.

ELLIS and BROWN, JJ., dissenting. Appeal from Circuit Court, Pinellas County; T. Frank Hobson, judge.

COUNSEL

L. D. Martin, of St. Petersburg, for appellants.

Erle B. Askew and Carroll R. Runyon, both of St. Petersburg, for appellee.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The appeal in this case is from an order dismissing a bill of complaint. The bill of complaint sought a decree holding void certain special assessments imposed by the defendant for street improvements, holding the lien claimed by the defendant pursuant to such assessments to be of no effect and to cancel the assessment certificates issued pursuant to such assessment.

The assessment was made under authority of chapter 9914, Sp. Acts 1923. The assessment appears to have been in some respects irregular. It is doubtful that chapter 14392, Sp. Acts 1929, ratified and validated these assessments, as that act might be held not to apply to special improvement assessments, but chapter 15511, Sp. Acts 1931, was and is sufficient in its terms to validate and ratify the assessment here complained of. See Lainhart v. Catts, 73 Fla. 735, 75 So. 47; Dover Drainage District v. Pancoast (Fla.) 135 So. 518; Martin v. Dade Much Land Co., 95 Fla. 530, 116 So. 449.

In this case the assessment was based on the front foot rule, and, therefore, the inequality of assessment complained of by reason of complainant's property being of greater depth than other property has no basis in fact as it would have, had the special assessment been based in area as was the case of Gast Realty & Investment Co. et al. v. Schneider Granite Co., 240 U.S. 55, 36 S.Ct. 254, 60 L.Ed. 523.

The decree should be affirmed on authority of the opinion and judgment in the Florida cases above cited. It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

BUFORD, C.J., and WHITFIELD, TERRELL, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

ELLIS and BROWN, JJ., dissent.