TOWN OF EAGLE LAKE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
E. E. ADAMS, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 court held that the essential questions in the case were concluded by prior precedent, affirming the lower court's judgment.
Complainants sought to restrain the collection of municipal taxes on lands that had been removed from the town and later reannexed. The validity of th…
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 Annexation cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellees as complainants precipitated this litigation by injunction to restrain appellants from levying and collecting municipal taxes on their lands as described in the bill of complaint. On final hearing, the chancellor granted the relief prayed for.
It appears that the lands in question were eliminated from the Town of Eagle Lake by decree of the Circuit Court in 1923, pursuant to Section 3049, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and that they were reannexed to the Town by Ordinance No. 30 in 1925. This suit was brought in 1940.
*166"■ It ■ is contended by-appellees that Ordinance No. 30 is invalid but appellants contend that appellees are estopped to raise this question because they repeatedly acknowledged ■the municipality as .such by paying taxes and running for office.
In his final decree, the chancellor discussed all the questions raised and cited cases in support of his conclusion on each point. We have examined the record and .the briefs and if it was shown that an opinion would serve any useful purpose, we could not do better than to adopt that of the chancellor.
The essential questions in the case are concluded by State v. City of Homestead, 100 Fla. 361, 130 So. 28; State ex rel. Landis v. Town of Boca Raton, 129 Fla. 673, 177 So. 293; State ex rel. Landis v. Town of Boynton Beach, 129 Fla. 528, 177 So. 327; Smith v. Amidon, 102 Fla. 492, 136 So. 256; Durham v. Pentucket Groves, 138 Fla. 386, 189 So. 428; and City of Sarasota v. Skillin, 130 Fla. 724, 178 So. 837, so the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.’
Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Thomas and Adams, J. J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Town OF Medley v. Seminole Rock Prods., Inc., 138 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…excluded from the benefits of such municipal organization, * * * Section 171.02, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. See: Durham v. Pentucket Graves, 138 Fla. 386, 189 So. 428; Town of Polk City v. Block Twenty, 138 Fla. 609, 189 So. 927; Town of Eagle Lake v. Adams, 146 Fla. 165, 200 So. 367. The chancellor, having heard and received the evidence of the respective parties, made a finding in his final decree that the appellee’s lands were virtually and commensurately excluded from the benefits of the Town. We cannot substitu…
-
McCOMBS v. West, 155 F.2d 601 (5th Cir. 1946)…es belonging to such city or town at the time of exclusion, shall remain and be the property of such city or town.” The Pentucket Groves case was followed in Town of Polk City v. Block 20, 138 Fla. 609, 189 So. 927. and Town of Eagle Lake v. Adams, 146 Fla. 165, 200 So. 367, in the application of the statute and exclusion decrees as between the property owners and their town.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Town of Boynton Beach, 129 Fla. 528 (Fla. 1937)
- The City of Sarasota v. Skillin, 130 Fla. 724 (Fla. 1937)
- State v. City of Homestead, 100 Fla. 361 (Fla. 1930)
- State v. Town of Boca Raton, 129 Fla. 673 (Fla. 1937)
- Casol Justice v. State, 130 Fla. 777 (Fla. 1937)
- Durham v. Pentucket Groves, Inc., 138 Fla. 386 (Fla. 1939)
- Smith v. Roy H. Amidon for Highlands City, 102 Fla. 492 (Fla. 1931)
- Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. DeBoe, 102 Fla. 492 (Fla. 1931)