STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
CITY OF CLEARWATER
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 the validity of gas revenue certificates issued by the City of Clearwater to finance improvements to its municipal gas plant, holding that such certificates need not be submitted to freeholder vote when the proceeds are used solely to improve an existing utility operation rather than embark on a new capital venture.
The Court held that gas revenue certificates need not be submitted to freeholder vote when they are used solely for necessary improvements and extensions to an existing, operating utility system into which proceeds will be invested to protect and improve the existing service, rather than to embark upon a new and original capital venture unauthorized by freeholder electors.
“the proposed certificates are to be used solely for the necessary requirements of an existing operating gas plant into which the proceeds of the certificates are to be invested for the purpose of protecting, improving and extending the existing system, and not to embark upon a new and original, capital venture not authorized by the freeholder electors”
States the holding distinguishing between utility improvements that need not be voted on versus new capital ventures requiring freeholder approval
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 Clearwater owned and operated a municipal gas plant producing illuminating gas for city consumers. On January 6, 1936, the city commission…
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.
The City of Clearwater, Florida, under and by virtue of Chapter 9710, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1923, and acts amendatory and supplementary thereto, for a number of years has owned and operated a municipal gas plant which produces illuminating gas that is distributed by it to consumers throughout the city.
On January 6, 1936, the city, acting through its duly elected and qualified commissioners, adopted an ordinance stating that certain additions and improvements' to the gas plant were necessary, and authorizing an issue of gas revenue certificates in the amount of $79,000.00 to finance *355these improvements. The ordinance specifically provided that these certificates should be paid off out of a special fund( to-wit: revenues to be derived from the operation of the gas plant; and that no taxes should ever be levied or no moneys diverted from any other city funds for the purpose of paying either interest or principal of the said certificates. The ordinance did not provide for an election to authorize or ratify the issuance of these certificates under Section 6 of Article IX of the Constitution of 'Florida, and the city proposes to issue and sell the certificates without having them voted on by the freeholders.
The situation presented in this case is in all respects like unto that dealt with in the case of B. C. Wilson and State of Florida v. City of Bartow, 123 Fla. (see next case), 168 Sou. Rep. 545, this day decided and is controlled by the same applicable principles of law.
So upon the authority of that decision, and our previously decided cases of State v. City of Miami, 113 Fla. 280, 152 Sou. Rep. 6; State v. City of Lake City, 116 Fla. 10, 156 Sou. Rep. 924, and State v. City of Daytona Beach, 118 Fla. 29, 158 Sou. Rep. 300, referred to and followed therein, the decree in this case validating the issuance of the proposed revenue certificates by the City of Clearwater should be, and is hereby, affirmed, the showing being that the proposed certificates are to be used solely for the necessary requirements of an existing operating gas plant into which the proceeds of the certificates are to be invested for the purpose of protecting, improving and extending the existing system, and not to embark upon a new and original, capital venture not authorized by the freeholder electors of the City of Clearwater.
It is therefore considered, adjudged and decreed by this Court that the validation decree of the Circuit Court of *356Pinellas County, in manner and form as entered and appealed from be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, and that mandate in conformity with this judgment do issue within ten days as provided for by Section 5108 C. G. L., 3298 R. G. S., Chapter 11854, Acts 1927, if no petition for rehearing has been filed within that period.
Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Williams v. The Town of Dunnellon, 125 Fla. 114 (Fla. 1936)…uded. State v. City of Miami, 113 Fla. 280, 152 So. 6; State v. City of Lake City, 116 Fla. 10, 156 Sou. 924; State v. City of Daytona Beach, 118 Fla. 29, 158 So. 300; Wilson v. City of Bartow, 124 Fla. 356, 168 So. 545; State v. City of Clearwater, 124 Fla. 354, 168 So. 546; State v. City of Punta Gorda, 124 Fla. 512, 168 So. 835; Leon County v. State, 122 Fla. 505, 165 So. 666; Tapers v. Pichard, 124 Fla. 549, 169 So. 39; Roach v. City of Tampa, 125 Fla. 62, 169 So. 627; Boykin v. Town of River Junction,…
-
Marvin v. Hous. Auth. of Jacksonville, 133 Fla. 590 (Fla. 1938)…” See State v. City of Miami, 113 Fla. 280, 152 So. 6; State v. City of Lake City, 116 Fla. 10, 156 So. 924; State v. City of Daytona Beach, 118 Fla. 29, 158 So. 300; Wilson v. City of Bartow, 124 Fla. 356, 168 So. 545; State v. City of Clearwater, 124 Fla. 354, 168 So. 546; State v. City of Punta Gorda, 124 Fla. 512; 169 So. 835; Leon County v. State, 122 Fla. 505, 165 So. 666; Tapers v. Pichard, 124 Fla. 549, 169 So. 39; Roach v. City of Tampa, 125 Fla. 62, 169 So. 627; Boyking v. Town of River Junction,…
-
Boykin v. Town of River Junction, 124 Fla. 827 (Fla. 1936)…g cases heretofore decided by this Court: State v. City of Miami, 113 Fla. 280, 152 Sou. Rep. 6; State v. City of Lake City, 116 Fla. 10, 156 Sou. Rep. 924; State v. City of Daytona Beach, 118 Fla. 29, 158 Sou. Rep. 300; State v. City of Clearwater, 124 Fla. 354, 168 Sou. Rep. 546; Wilson v. City of Bartow, 124 Fla. 356, 168 Sou. Rep. 545. In the cases just cited, it has been held by us that special revenue certificates of indebtedness issued to fund anticipated net earnings of an existing utility may lawf…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State & Joseph S. Diver v. City of Miami, 113 Fla. 280 (Fla. 1933)
- State v. City of Daytona Beach, 118 Fla. 29 (Fla. 1934)
- State v. City of Lake City, 116 Fla. 10 (Fla. 1934)
- Wilson v. City of Bartow, 124 Fla. 356 (Fla. 1936)
- Stewart v. City of DeLand, 117 Fla. 705 (Fla. 1934)
- Royal Indem. Co. v. Doyle E. Carlton, 116 Fla. 10 (Fla. 1934)