C. MELTON
v.
THE CITY OF WINTER HAVEN, ET AL.
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.
A bondholder of Winter Haven Refunding Bonds sought to enjoin the city from issuing mortgage revenue certificates for a new sewerage system under a 1935 statute, arguing it violated the bondholder's rights. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's denial of the injunction, holding that the refunding bond resolution did not pledge revenues from projects authorized after the bonds were issued.
The resolution authorizing the 1933 refunding bonds pledged only revenues under legal authority existing at the time of adoption and did not pledge revenues from the new sewerage system authorized by the 1935 statute. Therefore, the city could issue the mortgage revenue certificates without violating the bondholder's rights.
“the resolution authorizing the issuance of City of Winter Haven general refunding bonds, issue of 1933, does not contemplate the pledging of revenues on income under legal authority acquired subsequent to the issuance of the bonds authorized thereby, but only the pledging of revenues under the authority existing at the time of the adoption of the resolution”
The core holding explaining that the bond resolution did not pledge future revenues from subsequently-authorized projects
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceC. Melton owned Winter Haven Refunding Bonds issued in 1933. The City of Winter Haven sought to issue mortgage revenue certificates and bonds to const…
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 Pledge Of Revenues cases and more on FLexlaw
In a suit against the appellees brought b.y an owner, holder and bearer of Winter Haven Refunding Bonds (issue of 1933) to enjoin the defendants below from issuing or attempting to issue any mortgage revenue certificates, debentures or bonds to construct a city sewerage *259system in Winter Haven pursuant to Chapter 17118 (Senate Rill No. 515), General Laws of Florida, Acts. 1935, on the ground that it violated said refunding bondholder’s legal rights, the Circuit Court in denying the injunction sought, and in dismissing appellant’s bill of complaint, held in the final decree as follows:'
“It is the opinion of this Court that the resolution authorizing the issuance of City of Winter Haven general refunding bonds, issue of 1933, does not contemplate the pledging of revenues on income under legal authority acquired subsequent to the issuance of the bonds authorized thereby, but only the pledging of revenues under the authority existing at the time of the adoption of the resolution, and that, in the opinion of this Court, said authorizing resolution does not pledge the proceeds of income or revenue from charges or assessments to be made for the use of the city sewerage systems, particularly for the use of any sewerage system to be built subsequent to the adoption of said resolution and after the passage of Senate Bill 515, being Chapter 17118 of the Laws of Florida, Acts of 1935.”
Our own opinion on the merits of the question presented by this appeal coincides with that of, the chancellor below, and, for the reasons assigned by him as hereinbefore quoted, said decree hereby appealed from is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell, Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.