STATE
v.
CITY OF ARCADIA
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.
This case concerns the validation of refunding bonds for the City of Arcadia. The court affirmed the lower court's decree, finding it competent for the legislature to authorize municipalities to alter bonding provisions for refunding debt.
Yes, the legislature can authorize a municipality to change its bonding provisions from a rigid to a more flexible scheme to refund its bonded indebtedness. The court found this sufficient to affirm the lower court's judgment.
“It is perfectly competent for the Legislature to authorize a municipality to change its bonding provisions from a rigid to a more flexible scheme to refund its bonded indebtedness.”
This quote states the core legal principle the court relied on for its decision.
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 Arcadia sought to validate a single issue of bonds to refund several older issues, some dating back to 1905. The original bonds were issue…
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.
This appeal is from a decree validating a single issue of bonds to refund several issues of outstanding bonds of the City of Arcadia, Florida. Some of the outstanding bonds were issued as early as 1905. No objection is raised to the proceedings leading up to the validation decree and it is shown that each of the several issues sought to be refunded were voted by the people and were validated by court decree or by Act of the Legislature..
The original bonds were all issued before the adoption of the homestead amendment as amended (Section 1, Article X, Constitution of Florida) and the power of the city to issue them is not challenged. Five questions are posed for our determination but the real question is whether or not the original bonds having been issued under statutes imposing an unlimited taxing power.
The validation proceedings were prosecuted pursuant to Chapter 6868, Acts of 1915, Chapter 11854, Acts of 1937, and Chapter 15772, Acts of 1931. The latter Acts authorize assessments sufficient to pay interest and sinking fund on all refunding bonds and such procedure has been repeatedly approved by this Court. Board of Public Instruction for Palm Beach County v. State, 130 Fla. 366, 177 So. 615; State v. Special Tax School District No. 7-B, Santa Rosa County, 131 Fla. 603, 179 So. 683; State v. Special Tax *148School District, No. 5, of Dade County, 107 Fla. 93, 144 So. 356, and others. It is perfectly competent for the Legislature to authorize a municipality to change its bonding provisions from a rigid to a more flexible scheme to refund its bonded indebtedness.
Having reached this conclusion, it becomes unnecessary to consider other questions raised. Appellant concedes this much. The judgment below is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Chapman, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Wi-iitfield and Brown not participating as authorized by Section 4687 Compiled General Laws of 1927 and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. City of Fort Myers, 145 Fla. 135 (Fla. 1940)…2, 197 Sou. 739; State v. Special Tax School District No. 7-B of Santa Rosa County, 131 Fla. 603, 179 Sou. 683; State v. City of Palmetto, 140 Fla. 252, 191 Sou. 531; State v. City of Melbourne, 135 Fla. 870, 185 Sort. 850; State v. City of Arcadia, 137 Fla. 146, 187 Sou. 771. Here we have a case where bonds were issued supported by a limited tax. Later the limitation was by legislative [*143] Act eliminated. This was within the power of the Legislature, under Section 8, Article VIII, Constitution. See Sta…
-
State v. City of Manatee, 140 Fla. 248 (Fla. 1939)…t Myers case from the case at bar. In our view, the case at bar is ruled by State v. Special Tax School District No. 7-B, Santa Rosa County, 131 Fla. 603, 179 So. 683; State v. City of Melbourne, 135 Fla. 870, 185 So. 850; State v. City of Arcadia, 137 Fla. 146, 187 So. 771; and State v. City of Inverness, 137 Fla. 629, 188 So. 767. All of these cases contain points very similar to those in the case at bar an'd in some of them the points are identical. In municipal bond refunding cases, statutes may under…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Special Tax Sch. Dist. No. 5 of Dade Cnty., 107 Fla. 93 (Fla. 1932)
- State v. Special Tax Sch. Dist. No. 7-B of Santa Rosa Cnty., 131 Fla. 603 (Fla. 1938)
- Bd. of Pub. Instruction for the Cnty. of Palm Beach & Special Sch. Dist. No. Four of Palm Beach Cnty. v. State, 130 Fla. 366 (Fla. 1937)