STATE, EX REL. WOMEN'S CATHOLIC ORDER OF FORESTERS, A BENEVOLENT ASS'N UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
v.
CITY OF FORT MYERS
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.
In this mandamus proceeding, the Florida Supreme Court determined whether bonds issued by the City of Fort Myers were secured by limited or unlimited tax support. The court held that tax limitations contained in the original bond contracts could not be removed by a later charter amendment, and that a subsequent statute restoring the tax limitation was valid despite a minor discrepancy in its title.
The court held that the tax limitation contained in the original bond contracts could not be removed by adoption of a new charter approved by referendum, since the bonds were originally issued by an approving vote of freeholders, and a bond contract is not repealed by an election to approve a new charter. Additionally, even if there had been a waiver of the tax limitation when the new charter was approved, it was validly restored by Chapter 18532, Acts of 1937, and the minor discrepancy in the Act's title did not invalidate the statute.
“such provisions of the City Charter became a part of the bond contract”
Establishes that charter provisions regarding bond support are incorporated into the bond contract itself
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe relator, Women's Catholic Order of Foresters, owned bonds issued by the City of Fort Myers—some dated March 15, 1924, issued under a charter provi…
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 Municipal Bonds cases and more on FLexlaw
Relator is the owner of certain bonds issued by the City of Fort Myers, a portion of which were dated March 15, 1924, and the balance April 1, 1926. This is a mandamus proceeding, the ultimate purpose of which is to determine whether these bonds are supported by a limited or an unlimited tax.
It appears that the bonds dated March 15, 1924, were issued pursuant to a Charter of the City, adopted as provided by Chapter 6940, Acts of 1915, and that the bonds dated April 1, 1926, were issued pursuant to Chapter 10563, Acts of 1925. At the time the bonds dated March 15, were issued, Chapter 5496, Acts of 1905, was the City Charter, which in terms provided a limited tax to support all bonds. Chapter 10563, Acts of 1925, under which the bonds dated April 1 were issued also contained a limited tax to support all bonds. It is too academic to repeat that such provisions of the City Charter became a part of the bond contract.
But Relator contends that the tax limitation contained in the Charter provisions under which the bonds were issued *226was removed by -the adoption of- the new charter, Chapter 14052, Acts of 1929, carrying an unlimited tax provision.
It is true that the latter Act carried an unlimited taxing provision and was approved 'in a referendum election in' which all qualified electors of the City participated; but since the bonds were all issued on an approving vote of the freeholders we do not conceive that the bond contract .would be repealed by an election to approve a new charter participated in by the qualified electors. It appears that the charters of the City of Fort Myers have generally required that bonds be issued by an approving vote of the freeholders.
Even if there had been a waiver of the tax limitation provision when the new charter was approved, it was restored by Chapter 18532, Acts of 1937. Relator contends that this ■ Act is invalid because its title as signed by the Governor and the administrative officers of the House and Senate was different from the title to the Act as passed by the Legislature.
The discrepancy on this point is predicated on the use of the words “be the amount of such” as used in the title to the Act signed by the Governor 'and the' administrative officers of the House and Senate, but not found otherwise in' the Act. These words were pure surplusage in the title and-whether they were out or in did not affect the validity of the Act. Gray v. Central Fla. Lbr. Co., 104 Fla. 446, 140 So. 320.
The motion for peremptory writ is denied.
Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, J.> concurs in opinion.and judgment.
Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section' 4687,- Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rüles of this Court.'
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State ex rel. Woman's Catholic Order of Foresters v. City of Fort Myers, 143 Fla. 304 (Fla. 1940)…original alternative writ answer and return was filed and on motion for peremptory writ notwithstanding the return’, the case was considered and on October 6, 1939, our opinion and judgment was entered in and by which peremptory writ was denied. See 140 Fla. 224, 191 Sou. 289. Thereafter, on motion, we allowed amendments of the alternative writ. By amendment to the writ it is alleged in paragraph 2 thereof in effect that the bonds dated March 15, 1924, designated “City of Fort Myers 5y¿°/0 Sanitary Sewer…
-
State v. City of Punta Gorda, 144 Fla. 73 (Fla. 1940)…refunding bonds must be authorized by approving election under amended Section 6, Article IX, of our Constitution. See City of Fort Myers v. State, 129 Fla. 166, 176 Sou. 483; State ex rel. Woman’s Catholic Order of Foresters v. City of Fort Myers, 140 Fla. 224, 191 Sou. 289; State ex rel. Woman’s Catholic Order of Foresters v. City of Fort Myers, 143 Fla. 304, 196 So. 705, and cases cited in those opinions. We do not overlook the holding of this Court in State v. City of Manatee, 140 Fla. 248, 191 Sou. 5…
Authorities Cited
- Gray v. Cent. Fla. Lumber Co., 104 Fla. 446 (Fla. 1932)