CITY OF PALMETTO, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
A. M. KLEMM, A WIDOW, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision to issue a peremptory writ of mandamus, compelling a city to revise its budget to include funds for bond interest payments. The court found that the timing of the writ did not cause undue confusion.
No, the court held that the peremptory writ of mandamus was properly ordered. The timing of the writ did not justify the city's defense of potential confusion and disorder.
“A peremptory writ of mandamus was ordered in this case to compel the City of Palmetto to revise its budget for the fiscal year 1931-1932 so as to include therein an amount sufficient to retire certain interest coupons on certain bonds of the city held by relator.”
Describes the lower court's order that is being reviewed.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Palmetto was ordered to revise its 1931-1932 budget to include funds for bond interest. The petition for the writ was filed after the city…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Peremptory Writ Of Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
A peremptory writ of mandamus was ordered in this case to compel the City of Palmetto to revise its budget for the fiscal year 1931-1932 so as to include therein an amount sufficient to retire certain interest coupons on certain bonds of the city held by relator.
Petition for the alternative writ was filed ten days'after the respondents had made their annual levy and completed the assessment roll, and approximately six weeks before the city taxes fell due and the tax books were required to be opened under the ordinances of the city. Had the commands of the alternative writ been complied with at the time the writ was served, no inconvenience to taxpayers', and no confusion nor disorder in tax collections, could have resulted from the proceeding. At that time the city officials were in a situation where they could have very easily revised the tax roll in accordance with the alternative writ, before taxes became due.
*456Under such circumstances, the Court below properly overruled a defense interposed by the respondents, predicated upon the allegation in their return that to issue a peremptory writ would cause such confusion and disorder as to- be unwarranted in law. See State of Florida, ex rel. Aldrich, v. J. C. Mitchell, et al., as officials of the Town of Boca Raton, decided at the present term, opinion filed 8th day of February, 1933.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Baskin, 111 Fla. 667 (Fla. 1933)…f Clearwater alleged to be held by relator. The judgment appealed from should be reversed on the authority of the following cases decided by this Court since the judgment in the lower court was rendered on March 14, 1932. City of Palmetto v. Klemm, 108 Fla. 455, 146 Sou. Rep. 588; State v. Mitchell, 108 Fla. 233, 146 Sou. Rep. 207; Humphreys v. State, 108 Fla. 92, 145 Sou. Rep. 858. In the case of State v. Mitchell, supra, this Court distinguished the previous decisions in State ex rel. East Side Bank v. H…
-
State v. Shelfer, 118 Fla. 14 (Fla. 1934)…d to provide for the appropriation for the fiscal year 1933-1934 to be made part of a current budget and supported by a current tax levy, the time having expired to apply the same to the 1933 assessment roll, City of Palmetto v. Klemm, 108 Fla. 455, 146 Sou. Rep. 558; State, ex rel. Klemm, v. Baskin, 111 Fla. 667, 150 Sou. Rep. 517; State, ex rel. Bush, v. Simpson, 112 Fla. 627, 150 Sou. Rep. 800. Judgment in accordance with foregoing opinion will be entered. Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J.…
-
State v. Harrison, 145 Fla. 727 (Fla. 1941)…in the case at bar,, and therefore, revivor is the exclusive remedy; [*730] that the decisions and dicta in Ellison v. Allen (8 Fla. 206), Bush v. Adams (22 Fla. 177), Anderson v. Agnew (38 Fla. 30, 20 So. 766), and Schilling v. Biggs (108 Fla. 351, 146 So. 558), require the revivor to be within the eight-month period limited by Section 120 of the 1933 Probate Act, supra, for presentation to prevent becoming barred. We cannot agree with the relator’s contention. In Springer v. Aikin, supra, the plaintiffs…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence