CITY OF PORT TAMPA, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 City of Port Tampa sued Hillsborough County in assumpsit to recover road tax funds that the county collected but failed to turn over to the city as required by statute. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the lower court's dismissal, holding that the one-year claims limitation does not apply to statutory demands for mandatory fund transfers.
The one-year limitation in section 4665 C. Gr. L. does not apply to actions for taxes collected by a county under a statute mandating that funds be turned over to a city, and laches do not bar such an action.
“The board of county commissioners are hereby authorized and required to levy a tax of not to exceed five mills on a dollar on all property in said county each year for road and bridge purposes, and the same, when collected, shall be paid over to the county depository and kept in a separate fund, which fund shall not be expended for any other purpose than for work on the public roads and bridges in the several counties”
Establishes the county's statutory duty to collect and segregate road tax funds
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe county collected taxes under a statute requiring it to levy a road and bridge tax and turn over one-half of the amount collected from incorporated…
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 Assumpsit cases and more on FLexlaw
— The City brought assumpsit against the county for funds collected by the county during a period of years to “be turned over to” the city pursuant to the following statute:
“The board of county commissioners are hereby authorized and required to levy a tax of not to exceed five mills on a dollar on all property in said county each year for road and bridge purposes, and the same, when collected, shall be paid over to the county depository and kept in a separate fund, which fund shall not be expended for any other purpose than for work on the public roads and bridges in the several counties, and for the payment of the salaries of employes engaged in road and bridge work, and in providing the necessary tools, materials, implements and teams, and for the necessary work on said road and bridges: Provided, however, that one-half the amount so realized from said special tax on the property in incorporated cities and towns, shall be turned over to' said cities and towns, to be used in re*969pairing and maintaining the roads and streets thereof, as may be provided by the ordinances of such cities and towns.” Sec. 2453 C. G-. L.
A demurrer was interposed by the county, the grounds being laches and that the declaration shows that the claim was not filed with the board of county commissioners within a year from the time the claim arose, under section 4665 C. Gr. L. which is as follows:
“Every claim against any county shall be presented to the board of county commissioners within one year from the time said claim shall become due, and shall be barred if not so presented.”
Section 4647 C. Gr. L. contains the following:
“This Chapter shall not apply to any action by this State,, or by any officer or person in behalf of this State, or to any action by or on behalf of the trustees of the internal improvement fund, or the seminary or school fund, or the board of education of the State, or any county or municipal corporation, or school district within this State, or with respect to any moneys or property held or collected by any officer or trustee or his sureties.”
A writ of error to a judgment for the defendant on the demurrer sustained to the declaration was taken by the city.
The one year limitation contained in section 4665 C. Gr. L. is not applicable to this ease because the demand is for taxes collected by the county under the statute to “be turned over to” the city pursuant to the commands of the statute. Laches do not bar the action on the record here. See City of Chadron vs. Dawes County, 82 Neb. 614, 118 N. W. 469; City of Crawford v. Darrow, 87 Neb. 494, 127 N. W. 891; City of Albion v. Boone County, 94 Neb. 494, 143 S. W. 749; City of Newton v. Board of Supervisors, 124 A. S. R. 256.
Reversed.
Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.
*970Buford, G.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ideal Farms Drainage Dist. v. Certain Lands IN Said Dist. against which taxes have been assessed & Maurice Mountz, 154 Fla. 554 (Fla. 1944)…, from time, to time, considered and construed certain provisions of Section 95.02, supra. See Hayes v. Belleair Development Co., 120 Fla. 326, 162 So. 698; Walker v. Landress, 111 Fla. 356, 149 So. 545; City of Port Tampa v. County of Hillsborough, 102 Fla. 968, 136 So. 723; Southern Drainage District v. State of Florida, 93 Fla. 672, 112 So. 561; Browder v. Da Costa, 91 Fla. 1, 109 So. 448. Section 298.41, supra, provides that all drainage taxes provided for by .this Chapter (6458) “shall from the date o…
-
City of Stuart v. Green, 156 Fla. 551 (Fla. 1945)…tutes, 1941, and F.S.A., and there being a kinship between limitations of actions at law and the doctrine of stale demand in equity. See Norris v. Haggin et al., 10 S. Ct. 942, 136 U.S. 386, 34 L. Ed. 424; City of Port Tampa v. Hills-borough County, 102 Fla. 968, 136 So. 723. In support of this view we have been referred to the case of Common School Dist. No. 61 in Twin Falls County v. Twin Falls Bank and Trust Co., 50 Ida. 711, 4 Pac. (2nd) 342, where it was held on authority of many decisions from other s…
-
State v. Whitehurst, 122 Fla. 484 (Fla. 1936)…State, ex rel. Anderson, v. Parks, 94 Fla. 91, 113 Sou. Rep. 702; State v. White, 40 Fla. 297, 24 Sou. Rep. 160. Compare: State, ex rel. Sanford Herald, v. Wright, 98 Fla. 461, 124 Sou. Rep. 18, and State, ex rel. Landis, v. Atkinson, 102 Fla. 1092, 136 Sou. Rep. 723. It is likewise subject to the rule that prevails in prohibition cases that if an application for prohibition be too broad, the Court will not for that reason alone refuse the writ (as in mandamus cases) but will hold and limit it to so much as is p…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence