TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hendry v. Frank Kellow

James E. Hendry and Robert A. Henderson, Sr., Appellants, v. Frank Kellow, L. A. Wingate, A. E. Raymond, A. B. Cutter, and Dr. H. E. Parnell, as Commissioner of the City of Fort Myers, Florida, a Municipality, and G. E. Snell and C. Perry Snell, Heretofore Doing Business Under the Partnership Name of Snell Brothers, Appellees

Hendry v. Kellow, 114 So. 235 (Fla. 1927)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Florida · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 15, 1927
Judges
Whitfield, Terrell, Buford, Ellis, Strum, Brown
Citations
114 So. 23594 Fla. 23

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

Appellants as complainants below filed their amended bill of complaint against appellees seeking to enjoin the city of Fort Myers from paying Snell Brothers for certain improvements contracted by them to be performed on behalf of said City August 12, 1924. Resistance to payment for said improvements is predicated on the ground that they were made in “Valencia Terrace,” a subdivision outside the city limits of Fort Myers. It appears that subsequent to making the contract for the im *24 provements brought in question the Legislature of Florida by Chapter 10563, Acts of 1925, enlarged the city limits of Fort Myers to include “Valencia Terrace” and validated all contracts with reference thereto.

The demurrer on behalf of the city of Fort Myers to the amended bill of complaint was sustained, injunction was denied and the cause comes here on appeal from that order.

Even if the contract with Snell Brothers was invalid in its inception it was one that the Legislature was fully authorized to approve and validate which was accomplished by Chapter 10563, Acts of 1925, so the decree of the chancellor is affirmed on authority of Jacksonville v. Basnett, 20 Fla. 525 ; Smith v. Lange, 20 Fla. 697 ; Parker v. Jacksonville, 37 Fla. 342 , 20 So. 538 ; Cranor v. Volusia County, 54 Fla. 526 , 45 So. 455 ; Camp v. State, 71 Fla. 381 , 72 So. 483 ; Charlotte Harbor & N. R. Co. v. Wells, 78 Fla. 227 , 82 So. 770 .

Affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1930: 119302026peak 1930 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ebersbach Construction Co. v. Charles Ringling Co.131 So. 148 (Fla. 1930)

Most recent

  1. Ebersbach Construction Co. v. Charles Ringling Co.131 So. 148 (Fla. 1930)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 6

DepthCaseCited by
Charlotte Harbor & Northern Ry. Co. v. Welles, 82 So. 770 (Fla. 1919) 35
Camp v. State, 72 So. 483 (Fla. 1916) 4
City of Jacksonville v. Basnett, 20 Fla. 525 (1884) 20
Cranor v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 54 Fla. 526 (1907) 17
Parker v. City of Jacksonville, 37 Fla. 342 (1896) 16
Smith v. Longe, 20 Fla. 697 (1884) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list