DAVID SHOLTZ, J. M. LEE, AND W. V. KNOTT, AS MEMBERS OF AND CONSTITUTING THE STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND W. V. KNOTT, AS EX OFFICIO TREASURER OF CITRUS COUNTY, FLORIDA,
v.
STATE, EX REL. RALPH M. WINTERS
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 judgment, holding that a relator's past inaction in objecting to insufficient tax levies did not preclude them from seeking payment for matured interest coupons from available funds. The court emphasized the public officers' duty to ensure timely payment of such obligations.
No, the relator's past inaction does not preclude them from seeking payment for matured interest coupons from applicable moneys already on hand. Public officers have a spontaneous responsibility to ensure timely payment of such obligations.
“It was no defense to a writ brought to subject applicable moneys' already on hand to pay relator's demand, that relator has heretofore made no objection to the levying of insufficient taxes to pay him in past years, whereby his matured interest coupons have not been paid from such taxes.”
Establishes that past inaction by the relator is not a defense to the current action.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe relator sought payment for matured interest coupons. The appellants, state officials, argued that the relator's failure to object to insufficient …
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.
In this case an inspection of the record has been made and the judgment rendered found to square with the precedents set in earlier cases previously decided by this Court after eliminating from consideration some of the questions argued which' we find were not properly raised in the court below so as to be availed of on this writ of error, if at all.
It was no defense to a writ brought to subject applicable moneys' already on hand to pay relator’s demand, that relator has heretofore made no objection to the levying of *139insufficient taxes to pay him in past years, whereby his matured interest coupons have not been paid from such taxes.
It was the spontaneous responsibility of the accountable local public officers charged with the duty of annually raising revenues to pay relator’s coupons, to see to it that payment was' earlier made, and the fact that they defaulted in so doing is what this proceeding attempts to supply a remedy for in the form of a judgment for the payment of relator’s coupons out of moneys applicable tO' pay his demand. The cited case of State, ex rel. Gillespie v. Bay County, 113 Fla. 687, 151 Sou. Rep. 10, had to do with the enforcement by mandamus of a cumulative tax levy for several past years taxes at one time — not to the disbursement by a state board of moneys which its legal duty requires it to disburse as directed by the judgment in this case, which is
Affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Brown, J., dissents.
(dissenting). — I think the motion to quash filed in the court below should have been granted, The Board of County Commissioners should have been made parties. These funds were county funds. Under the Constitution, the State cannot appropriate the proceeds of a State tax to pay county bonds; nor can the State obligate itself in any way to pay county bonds. The State Board of Administration is not the debtor here. It is a mere fiscal agent of the county. Amos v. Mathews, 99 Fla. 1, Carlton v. Mathews, 103 Fla. 301, 379; 137 So. 815; Gillespie v. Carlton, 103 Fla. 810, 138 So. 812. The reason is even stronger where as here county ad valorem tax moneys are involved. See Fla. Nat’l Bank v. Sholtz, 160 So. 196. I doubt the applicability of the first come, first served, rule in cases of this kind.
Brown, J.
(dissenting). — I think the motion to quash filed in the court below should have been granted, The Board of County Commissioners should have been made parties. These funds were county funds. Under the Constitution, the State cannot appropriate the proceeds of a State tax to pay county bonds; nor can the State obligate itself in any way to pay county bonds. The State Board of Administration is not the debtor here. It is a mere fiscal agent of the county. Amos v. Mathews, 99 Fla. 1, Carlton v. Mathews, 103 Fla. 301, 379; 137 So. 815; Gillespie v. Carlton, 103 Fla. 810, 138 So.
812. The reason is even stronger where as here county ad valorem tax moneys are involved. See Fla. Nat’l Bank v. Sholtz, 160 So.
196. I doubt the applicability of the first come, first served, rule in cases of this kind.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sholtz v. State, 122 Fla. 238 (Fla. 1935)…ty to provide, as' enjoined by law, for the prompt and orderly payment of the whole series of bonds and interest coupons of which relator’s bonds are a part.” And in Sholtz, et al., v. State, ex rel. Winters, opinion filed October 3, 1935, reported 163 Sou. 402, we held: “It was no defense to a writ brought to subject applicable moneys already on hand to pay relator’s demand that relator has heretofore made no objections to the levying of insufficient taxes to pay him in past years whereby his matured int…
Authorities Cited
- Amos v. Knott, 99 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1930)
- State v. Doyle E. Carlton, 103 Fla. 810 (Fla. 1931)
- Doyle E. Carlton v. Mathews, 103 Fla. 301 (Fla. 1931)
- State v. Cnty. of Bay, 112 Fla. 687 (Fla. 1933)
- State v. Sholtz, 118 Fla. 786 (Fla. 1933)