TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. City of St. Augustine

State v. City of St. Augustine, Et Al.

State v. City of St. Augustine, 169 So. 648 (Fla. 1936)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Florida · State Highest Courts
Decided
August 11, 1936
Judges
Ellis, Whitfield, Terrell, Buford, Davis
Citations
169 So. 648125 Fla. 1731936 Fla. LEXIS 1254

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

This appeal is from a decree validating $113,000.00 of Water Revenue Certificates to be issued by the City of St. Augustine, Florida, without an approving vote of the freeholder electors of the City as required by Section 6 , Article IX , of the Constitution of Florida, as amended in 1930, when bonds of the City are issued.

The proceeds to be derived from a sale of the Water Revenue Certificates are to be used for the necessary preservation and improvement and for necessary additions to the existing Waterworks System of the City.

The Water Revenue Certificates are to be paid solely from the revenue derived from the operation of the said waterworks system and not otherwise.

The decree validating the issue of $113,000.00 Water Revenue Certificates to be issued by the City of St. Augustine for necessary improvements and additions to the existing waterworks system of the city without an approving vote of the freeholder electors of the City, is supported by the pleadings and evidence adduced in the court below, and the issue of such certificates not being in violation of Section 6, Article IX, of the Constitution, and being otherwise authorized by law, such decree should be affirmed on the authority of State, et al., v. City of Miami, 113 Fla. 280 , 152 So. 6 ; State v. City of Daytona Beach, 118 Fla. 29 , 158 So. 200 ; Wilson v. City of Bartow, 124 Fla. 356 , 168 So. 545 ; Boykin v. Town of River Junction; Kathleen Citrus *Page 175 Land Company v. City of Lakeland; State, ex rel. City of Vero Beach, v. MacConnell, No. One; Williams v. Town of Dunnellon; Bradley v. City of Homestead; decided at this term, and other like cases recently decided.

Affirmed.

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

ELLIS, P.J., concurs upon the principle announced in his specially concurring opinion in the case of State, ex rel. City of Vero Beach, v. MacConnell, filed August 3, 1936.

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

-This appeal is from a decree validating $113,000.00 of Water Revenue Certificates to be issued by the City of St. Augustine, Florida, without an approving vote of the freeholder electors of the City as required by Section 6, Article IX, of the Constitution of Florida, as amended in 1930, when bonds of the City are issued.

The proceeds to be derived from a sale of the Water Revenue Certificates are to be used for the necessary preservation and improvement and for necessary additions to the existing Waterworks System of the City.

The Water Revenue Certificates are to be paid solely from the revenue derived from the operation of the said waterworks system and not otherwise.

The decree validating the issue of $113,000.00 Water Revenue Certificates to be issued by the City of St. Augustine for necessary improvements and additions to the existing waterworks system of the city without an approving vote of the freeholder electors of the City, is supported by the pleadings and evidence adduced in the court below, and the issue of such certificates not being in violation of Section 6, Article IX, of the Constitution, and being otherwise authorized by law, such decree should be affirmed on the authority of State, et al., v. City of Miami, 113 Fla. 280 , 152 So. 6 ; State v. City of Daytona Beach, 118 Fla. 29 , 158 So. 200 ; Wilson v. City of Bartow, 124 Fla. 356 , 168 So. 545 ; Boykin v. Town of River Junction; Kathleen Citrus *175 Land Company v. City of Lakeland; State, ex rel. City of Vero Beach, v. MacConnell, No. One; Williams v. Town of Dunnellon; Bradley v. City of Homestead; decided at this term, and other like cases recently decided.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.

Concurrence — Ellis

Ellis, P. J.,

concurs upon the principle announced in his specially concurring opinion in the case of State, ex rel. City of Vero Beach, v. MacConnell, filed August 3, 1936.

How later courts describe this case

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

1937: 11938: 31939: 119372026peak 1938 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Spearman Brewing Co. v. City of Pensacola187 So. 365 (Fla. 1939)
  2. Brooks v. City of Jacksonville173 So. 365 (Fla. 1937)
  3. State v. City of Pensacola184 So. 768 (Fla. 1938)
  4. State v. City of Deland185 So. 343 (Fla. 1938)
  5. State v. Counties of St. Lucie, Okeechobee183 So. 846 (Fla. 1938)

Most recent

  1. Spearman Brewing Co. v. City of Pensacola187 So. 365 (Fla. 1939)
  2. State v. City of Deland185 So. 343 (Fla. 1938)
  3. State v. City of Pensacola184 So. 768 (Fla. 1938)
  4. State v. Counties of St. Lucie, Okeechobee183 So. 846 (Fla. 1938)
  5. Brooks v. City of Jacksonville173 So. 365 (Fla. 1937)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
State & Diver v. City of Miami, 152 So. 6 (Fla. 1933) 87
Wilson v. City of Bartow, 168 So. 545 (Fla. 1936) 14
State v. City of Daytona Beach, 158 So. 300 (Fla. 1934) 41

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