Wade v. City of Jacksonville
Decision Date | 12 January 1934 |
Citation | 113 Fla. 718,152 So. 197 |
Parties | WADE et al. v. City of Jacksonville[*] |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Suit by the City of Jacksonville against Marie L. Wade and Leonidas E. Wade, her husband. From a decree for complainant defendants appeal.
Affirmed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Duval County; George Couper Gibbs, judge.
L. E Wade and T. J. Jennings, Jr., both of Green Cove Springs, for appellants.
Austin Miller and Gov Hutchinson, both of Jacksonville, for appellee.
The appeal before us is from a final decree foreclosing certain municipal tax certificates. The bill of complaint sought to foreclose certificates issued for the unpaid taxes for the years 1887 to 1891, inclusive, and from 1898 to 1929 inclusive, together with interest thereon as provided by law.
After answer was filed, the issues presented were as to the validity of the certificates for the unpaid taxes of 1887, 1889, 1891, and the years 1898 to 1928, inclusive; the taxes for 1929 having been paid after suit was filed.
Testimony was taken before a special master.
Final decree was rendered in which it was held, in substance, that for the years 1898 to and including 1913 the property involved had been duly returned for taxation by the owner, and that the same was not assessed by the city in the name of the owner of the land or the occupant thereof, and that such assessments for the years 1898 to 1913, both inclusive, were for this reason invalid.
The chancellor held:
And decree was entered pursuant to such findings.
Section 1 of chapter 4300, Acts of 1893, is as follows:
As amended by section 1 of chapter 5065, Acts of 1901, this provision reads as follows:
'The Mayor and City Council are hereby authorized to levy and impose license taxes for municipal purposes upon any and all occupations and upon any and all privileges, and to grade and fix the amounts to be paid, as fully and to the same extent and in the same manner that the Legislature could impose such licenses and taxes for State purposes, and without regard to any of the provisions of any general revenue law of this State not specifically repealing this Act.
'The Mayor and City Council may by ordinance provide for licensing the keeping of dogs and for the destruction of dogs, the owner or keeper whereof shall not comply with the regulations prescribed by ordinance in respect thereto, and for the punishment of persons violating ordinances on the subject.'
Section 3 of chapter 4300, Acts of 1893, provides as follows:
The title to chapter 4300, supra, is as follows:
'An Act Supplementary to an Act Entitled An Act to Establish the Municipality of Jacksonville, Provide for its Government and Prescribe its Jurisdiction and Powers, approved May 31, 1887, and to Extend the Powers of the Government of said Municipality.'
Referring to chapter 3775, Acts of May 31, 1887, we find the title to be, 'An Act to Establish the Municipality of Jacksonville, Provide for its Government and Prescribe its Jurisdiction and Powers.'
Now it is contended that chapter 4300, supra, is invalid because it violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and because the title of the act is insufficient. This act shows upon its face, as well as the title, when taken in connection with the previous act, that it was in fact a supplemental act, and, being a supplemental act, the title was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State Ex Rel. Gibbs v. Couch
... ... B. Couch and others, ... challenging the authority of the City Commissioners of the ... City of Daytona Beach to continue to hold office after the ... enactment ... We have ... followed the above enunciation in the case of City of ... Jacksonville v. Smoot, 83 Fla. 575, 92 So. 617 ... In ... Metropolitan R. Co. v. District of ... [190 So. 730] ... City of Apalachicola v. State, 93 Fla. 921, 112 So. 618; ... Wade v. City of Jacksonville, 113 Fla. 718, 152 So ... [139 Fla. 370] 197; Ex parte Perry, 71 Fla ... ...
-
City of Orlando v. Evans
... ... Prince, 63 Fla ... 387, 58 So. 542; Merrell v. City of St. Petersburg, ... 64 Fla. 367, 60 So. 349; City of Jacksonville v ... Bowden, 67 Fla. 181, 64 So. 769, L.R.A.,1916D, 913, ... Ann.Cas.1915D, 99; Attorney General v. Connors, 27 ... Fla. 329, 9 So. 7; State v ... See ... Broward v. Garrison Inv. Corp., 121 Fla. 45, 163 So ... 212; City of Apalachicola v. State, 93 Fla. 921, 112 ... So. 618; Wade v. City of Jacksonville, 113 Fla. 718, ... 152 So. 197; Ex parte Perry, 71 Fla. 250, 71 So. 174; ... State v. City of Miami, 101 Fla. 292, 134 So ... ...
-
Southern Pine Co. of Georgia v. Murphy Inv. Co.
... ... Stringer, judge ... COUNSEL ... Thomas ... Sale, of Panama City, for appellant ... Scofield ... & Scofield, of Inverness, for appellee ... Foster Co., 101 Fla. 1147, 132 So. 842; Washbish v ... Elvins, 114 Fla. 575, 154 So. 315; Wade v. City of ... Jacksonville, 113 Fla. 718, 152 So. 197 ... Where ... foreclosure suit ... ...
-
Hisgen v. Rileigh, 1116
...or special laws prevail.' Sanders v. Howell, 73 Fla. 563, 74 So. 802; Ex parte Davidson, 76 Fla. 272, 79 So. 727; Wade v. City of Jacksonville, 113 Fla. 718, 152 So. 197; Quigg v. State ex rel. Miller, 145 Fla. 431, 199 So. However, we do not hold that Section 165.12, Florida Statutes, F.S.......