Williams v. Town of Dunnellon
Decision Date | 03 August 1936 |
Citation | 169 So. 631,125 Fla. 114 |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Parties | WILLIAMS v. TOWN OF DUNNELLON et al. |
Suit by E. L. Williams against the Town of Dunnellon and others. From a decree dismissing the bill of complaint, E. L. Williams appeals.
Affirmed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; J. C B. Koonce, judge.
D. Niel Ferguson, of Ocala, for appellant.
W. E Smith, of Ocala, for appellees.
This appeal is from a decree dismissing the bill of complaint herein which seeks to enjoin the issue of water revenue certificates by the town of Dunnellon. It is in effect alleged, among other matters not necessary to be here stated in view of the decree of validation, that $14,000 of water revenue certificates to be issued by the town of Dunnellon Fla., for the purpose of making stated proposed improvements and extensions to an existing waterworks system owned and operated by the town of Dunnellon in its proprietary capacity since the year 1909, have been validated by the circuit court; but that such water revenue certificates are in legal effect bonds of the town of Dunnellon, and as they have not been approved by the freeholder electors of the town, the issue of such certificates would violate section 6 of article 9 of the Florida Constitution as amended in 1930, notwithstanding the decree of the circuit court validating the water revenue certificates. See Weinberger v. Board, of Public Instruction, 93 Fla. 470, 112 So. 253; Boykin v. Town of River Junction (Fla.) 169 So. 492, filed June 17, 1936.
The certificates state upon their face that they are payable 'solely from the bond fund provided therefor'; and that the ordinance under which the certificates were issued 'provides that the Town shall fix and maintain rates and collect charges for the facilities and services afforded by the water supply system, which will provide revenues sufficient at all times, to pay the cost of operation, maintenance, and repairs of said system, and to pay into the Bond Fund created and designed by said ordinance as 'Water Revenue Certificate Sinking Fund,' a sufficient amount of Revenue over and above such cost of operation, maintenance, and repairs, to pay the interest on, and the principal of said certificates as the same respectively become due.'
The ordinance contains the following:
3. An amount at least equal to twenty per centum (20%) of the sum of the amount required by (1) and the amount required by (2) in order to provide a reasonable reserve in such bond Fund. The payments required by (3) shall be continued until there is in said Bond Fund an amount sufficient to meet the next maturing installment of principal of any of said Certificates and the interest payments due on all outstanding Certificates up to and including the date of the next maturing installment of principal of any of said Certificates * * * and the principal and interest payments to fall due during the next two fiscal years thereafter. No payment need be made into the Bond Fund if, and when, the amount in such Bond Fund is at least equal to the aggregate principal amount of interest then due or thereafter to become due on said Certificates.
'If in any month for any reason there shall not be paid into said Bond Fund the amounts required by this Section, then an amount equal to such deficiency in the amount required to be paid into said Bond Fund in such month shall be added to the amount otherwise required to be paid into said Bond Fund during the next succeeding month.
'(a) The Town will maintain the water supply system in good condition, and operate the same in an effecient manner and at a reasonable rate.
'(b) The Town shall fix and maintain rates and collect charges for the facilities and service afforded by the water supply system which will provide revenue sufficient at all times to pay the cost of operation, maintenance, and repairs of said system and to maintain the Bond Fund as hereinbefore provided by Section 6(b) hereof.
'(c) The Town will not issue any additional obligations payable from the revenues of said system unless the lien of such obligations on the revenues of said system is made junior and subordinate in all respects to the lien of the Certificates issued hereunder, and that it will not sell, mortgage, lease or otherwise dispose of or encumber any property essential to the proper operation of the water supply system.
'(d) The Town will maintain insurance on the water supply system of the kind and in an amount which usually would be maintained by private corporations owning and operating a similar undertaking.
'(f) Any holder of any certificate issued hereunder shall have the right at all reasonable times to inspect the system and all records and accounts thereof.
'None of the foregoing covenants shall be construed as requiring the Town to expend any funds other than the revenues derived from the operation of the water supply system.
* * *
'The net revenue of such water supply system during the last five fiscal years has amounted to the following sums:
'For fiscal year ending Dec. 31, 1931, Net Revenue, $1,617.93
'For fiscal year ending Dec. 31, 1932, Net Revenue, $1,397.74
'For fiscal year ending Dec. 31, 1933, Net Revenue, $2,317.10
'For fiscal year ending Dec. 31, 1934, Net Revenue, $2,643.04
'For fiscal year ending Dec. 31, 1935, Net Revenue, $3,253.24
The question presented is whether the issue of the stated water revenue certificates by the town of Dunnellon would violate section 6, article 9 of the Constitution as amended in 1930:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. City of Tampa
... ... of the city limits but not within any incorporated town or ... The ... Ordinance provided: ... 'Section ... '(a) ... The ... 405, 66 So. 150, affirmed in 240 U.S ... 328, 36 S.Ct. 258, 60 L.Ed. 672; Williams v ... Dormany, 99 Fla. 496, 126 So. 117 ... It will ... be observed that the ... of the constitution. See Williams v. Town of ... Dunnellon, 125 Fla. 114, 169 So. 631; Kathleen ... Citrus Land Co. v. City of Lakeland, 124 Fla. 659, 169 ... ...
-
State v. Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency
...or expansion of an existing utility, on the theory that the public dependence and necessity were clear. E. g., Williams v. Dunnellon, 125 Fla. 114, 169 So. 631 (1936). See also State v. City of Tampa, 148 Fla. 6, 3 So.2d 484 (1941). But soon the Court began to allow bonds to be sold without......
-
State Ex Rel. Harrington v. City of Pompano
... ... and denied ... The ... return shows in this case that the Town of Pompano was ... organized by Chapter 6754, Special Acts of 1913, Laws of ... Florida, and ... forbidding such issue. Smith Bros. v. Williams, 100 ... Fla. 642, 126 So. 367; City of Daytona Beach v. King, ... Fla., 181 So. 1 [116 A.L.R ... L. Co. v. City of ... Lakeland, 124 Fla. 659, 169 So. 356; Williams v ... Town of Dunnellon, 125 Fla. 114, 169 So. 631; State ... v. Calhoun County, 125 Fla. 263, 169 So. 673; State ... ...
-
State v. City of De Land
... ... So. 300; Herbert v. City of Daytona Beach, 121 Fla ... 212, 163 So. 565, 566; Boykin v. Town of River ... Junction, 121 Fla. 902, 164 So. 558; Leon County v ... State, 122 Fla. 505, 165 ... 683, ... 169 So. 366; Boykin v. Town of River Junction, 124 ... Fla. 827, 169 So. 492; Williams v. Town of ... Dunnellon, 125 Fla. 114, 169 So. 631; State ex rel ... City of Vero Beach v ... ...
-
The Foreclosure of Local Special Assessment Liens: What, Where, Why, and How of the Civil Action and Enforcement Methods.
...Towers, Inc., 305 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 1974). (4) Simpson v. City of Brooksville, 137 Fla. 623 (1939). (5) Williams v. Town of Dunnellon, 169 So. 631 (Fla. 1936). See also Heriot v. City of Pensacola, 146 So. 654 (Fla. 1933); Amos v. Mathews, 126 So. 308 (Fla. 1930); Malone v. City of Quincy, 6......