CARROLL DUNSCOMBE, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARTIN COUNTY, APPELLEES
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 reversed the dissolution of an injunction preventing Martin County commissioners from contracting for a new courthouse and jail. The court held that because Martin County had only a temporary county seat under statutory law, the commissioners lacked authority to erect a permanent courthouse until a permanent county seat was properly designated.
The court held that the commissioners lack authority to erect a courthouse or jail under the general statutes (sections 2384 et seq., Comp. Gen. Laws 1927) when only a temporary county seat has been established. Such authority is applicable only after a permanent county seat has been duly designated as required by the State Constitution and general law.
“in the formation of new counties the county seat may be temporarily established by law.”
Establishes the constitutional provision that permits only temporary county seat designation for newly formed counties.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartin County was established by Chapter 10180 of the Acts of 1925, with the Town of Stuart designated as the temporary county seat for a five-year pe…
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.
Per Curiam.
This appeal is from an order dissolving an injunction against the erection of a new court house and jail in Martin County, Florida.
The Constitution provides that “in the formation of new counties the county seat may be temporarily established by law.” Section IV. Art. VIII Constitution. Martin County was established by Chapter 10180 Acts of 1925, it being provided that “The Town of Stuart shall be the temporary county seat of said county for a period of five years.” Upon a bill of complaint filed December 13, 1928, the county commissioners of Martin County were enjoined from making agreements or contracts for the erection of .a new court house and/ or jail. Later the injunction was dissolved and the complainants appealed.
If it be conceded that the statutory provision that the Town of Stuart shall be the temporary county seat “for a period of five years, ’ ’ is valid, and though, it appears that the county greatly needs a better court house and jail than those now being used as such, yet in view of the organic provisions that in the formation of a new county, “the county seat may be temporarily established by law,” and that the legislature shall provide by general law for the removal of county seats, the statutes sections 2384 et seq., Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, authorizing the county commissioners to erect a court house or jail, must be interpreted to be applicable when a permanent county seat has been designated as required by law. It does not appear that a permanent county seat for Martin County has been duly chosen and the injunction should not have been -dissolved.
Reversed.
Terrell, C. J. and Whitfield, Ellis, Brown and Buford, J. J. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin Cnty. v. Hansen, 111 Fla. 40 (Fla. 1933)…hich authorized such a recovery on a quantum, meruit basis. The record shows that Kirk, who’ rendered the services in question, was employed October 10, 1928. The injunction suit of Dunscombe v. Martin County Commissioners (reviewed by this Court in 98 Fla. 112, 125 Sou. Rep. 523), was not begun until Dec., 14, 1928.,'The defendant in error in. the present suit is Kirk’s assignee of the claim against Martin County for the value of the services rendered by Kirk, the architect. My view is that the services,…1 / 4
-
Pohl Beauty Sch., Inc. v. City of Miami, 118 Fla. 664 (Fla. 1935)…the city i through the medium of its agencies with the property and business of the complainant. See 32 C. J. 259. The above doctrine is generally recognized. It was applied in the case of Dunscombe v. County Commissioners Martin Co., 98 Fla. 112, 123 South. Rep. 523, where a county began the erection of a court house before a per [*671] manent county seat had been duly chosen. This court held that the dissolution of an injunction to restrain the county from the unlawful exercise of the power was erroneous. The…
-
Tucker v. Seminole Cnty., 214 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)…he law, article VIII, section 4, constitution of the State of Florida, F.S.A., may not be circumvented by the use of F.S.1967, Chapter 135, F.S.A., over the objection of voters and taxpayers. Dunscombe v. County Commissioners of Martin County, 1929, 98 Fla. 112, 123 So. 523. The use of the words “temporary” and “permanent” in connection with county seats is perhaps misleading as all county seats are temporary except in instances through the action of F.S.1967, Section 138.10, F.S.A., the site is fixed for…1 / 2