THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
Florida Supreme Court upheld the validity of $344,000 in refunding bonds issued by Miami under state law, rejecting the argument that refunding bonds require voter approval. The court interpreted the 1930 constitutional amendment to exempt refunding bonds from the general election requirement when designed merely to extend payment time on existing debt.
Refunding bonds issued by municipalities to extend the time for payment of existing bonds or interest thereon are excepted from the constitutional requirement of voter approval. The amended constitutional provision applies only to bonds that have already been refunded, not to refunding bonds designed merely to extend payment time on municipal indebtedness.
“The latter part of Section 6, Article IX, of the Constitution as amended in 1930, is not confined to bonds to refund bonds that have been been refunded, but excepts from the operation of the prior part of the section the issue of bonds to refund any county, district or municipal bonds or the interest thereon, when the refunding bonds to be issued are designed merely to extend the time for the payment of the indebtedness represented by the bonds or the interest thereon that are refunded.”
Establishes the court's interpretation that refunding bonds are excepted from voter approval requirements when designed to extend payment time
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 Miami sought to issue $344,000 of refunding bonds under Chapter 11855, Acts of 1927. The state argued the bonds could not be legally 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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Constitutional Amendment Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal was taken from a decree validating $344,000.00 of refunding bonds to be issued by the City of Miami under Chapter 11855, Acts of 1927, entitled, “An Act to Authorize the issuance of refunding bonds by counties, cities, towns and other municipal corporations and taxing districts, and to provide for their payment.” Section 2378 et seq. Comp. Gen. Laws.
It is contended that as the bonds are not to refund bonds that have already been refunded, they cannot be legally issued, since such issue has not “been approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election in which a majority of the freeholders who are qualified electors residing in” the city shall have participated, as required by Section 6, Article IX of the Constitution, as amended at the general election held November 4, 1930, which amended organic section is as follows:
“The Legislature shall have power to provide for issuing State bonds only for the purpose of repelling invasion or suppressing insurrection, and the Counties, Districts or Municipalities of the State of Florida shall have power to issue bonds only after the same shall have been approved by a majority of the votes cast in an election in which a majority of the freeholders who are qualified electors residing in such Counties, Districts, or Municipalities shall participate, to be held in the manner to be prescribed by law; but the provisions of this Act shall not apply to the *1390refunding of bonds issued exclusively for the purpose of refunding of the bonds or the interest thereon of such Counties, Districts, or Municipalities.”
There are several apparently superfluous words in the latter part of the above quoted amended section of the Constitution, but they do not affect the intendments of the organic provision with reference to the issue of refunding bonds for the purpose of refunding the bonds or the interest thereon, of counties, districts or municipalities of the State of Florida.
The first part of Section 6, Article IX, of the Constitution, as amended in 1930, limits the power of the legislature “to provide for issuing State bonds,” to bonds to be issued “for the purpose of repelling invasions or suppressing insurrection”; and also provides that the counties, districts or municipalities of the State of Florida shall have power to issue bonds only after the issue of such -bonds shall have been approved at an election as required by the organic section.
The latter part of Section 6, Article IX, of the Constitution as amended in 1930, is not confined to bonds to refund bonds that have been been refunded, but excepts from the operation of the prior part of the section the issue of bonds to refund any county, district or municipal bonds or the interest thereon, when the refunding bonds to be issued are designed merely to extend the time for the payment of the indebtedness represented by the bonds or the interest thereon that are refunded.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Ellis, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
State & Joseph S. Diver v. City of Miami, 113 Fla. 280 (Fla. 1933)…, and construed in the following cases: Advisory Opinion to Governor, 94 Fla. 967, 114 Sou. Rep. 850; Amos v. Mathews, 99 Fla. 1, 126 Sou. Rep. 308; Martin v. Dade Muck Land Co., 95 Fla. 530, 116 Sou. Rep. 449; State v. City of Miami, 100 Fla. 1388, 131 Sou. Rep. 143; Sullivan v. City of Tampa, 101 Fla. 298, 134 Sou. Rep. 211; Sholtz v. McCord, 112 Fla. 248, 150 Sou. Rep. 234; Herbert v. Thursby, 112 Fla. 826, 151 Sou. Rep. 385. Appellant Diver contends that under Section 6 of Article IX of the Constitution as…
-
Sullivan v. City of Tampa, 134 So. 211 (Fla. 1931)…ht of circumstances and historical events leading up to its adoption, from all of which the purpose of the people in adopting it is to be gleaned." And this court has already shown, in the opinion by MR. JUSTICE WHITFIELD in State v. City of Miami, 131 So. 143, that the court is not disposed to place such a narrow and technical construction upon this amended section of the Constitution as would defeat its evident intent and purpose. Nor, on the other hand, should its wholesome prohibitions be impaired by…
-
State v. City of Miami, 103 Fla. 54 (Fla. 1931)…hall not apply to the refunding of bonds issued exclusively for the purpose of refunding of the bonds or the interest thereon of such Counties, Districts, or Municipalities).” This amendment was construed in State vs. City of Miami, .... Fla. ...., 131 So. 143; Sullivan vs. City of Tampa, 101 Fla. 298, 134 So. 211; and State vs. City Miami, 101 Fla. 292, 134 So. 608, and was held not to require a vote of the freeholders to issue refunding bonds designed to extend the time for payment of the original indeb…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence