THE STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL., B. L. HAMNER, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
W. T. WILLIAMS, ET AL., COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, DEFENDANTS 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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's denial of a mandamus, holding that the county commissioners could not issue notes to reimburse individuals for payments made on a guaranty agreement with a bank, as these transactions did not constitute a lawful district purpose.
No, the county commissioners were not authorized to issue the notes because the transactions between the individuals and the bank did not establish a lawful district purpose for the use of Road and Bridge District funds.
“Even if Chapter 14118, Acts of 1929, authorizing the county commissioners to reimburse any guarantors for any money paid out by said guarantors on account of any guaranty of any bond issue of the North Tampa Special Road and Bridge District, is for an authorized district purpose, the alternative writ does not show such a guaranty for a lawful district purpose, in that the writ alleges an agreement between individuals and a bank “for the purpose of insuring the satisfactory sale of certain bonds of” the district held by the bank; and also alleges a deposit by such individuals with the bank as the guarantee, which deposit has been taken by the bank.”
This quote explains why the court found the alleged guaranty was not for a lawful district purpose.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIndividuals entered into an agreement with a bank to insure the satisfactory sale of certain district bonds held by the bank. They made a deposit with…
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 Guaranty Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
—A writ of error was taken to' a final order denying a peremptory writ of mandamus and quashing the alternative writ which sought to require the board of county commissioners to issue notes of a taxing district to be sold to reimburse individuals for amounts paid by them on a guaranty agreement with a bank.
Even if Chapter 14118, Acts of 1929, authorizing the county commissioners to reimburse any guarantors for any money paid out by said guarantors on account of any guaranty of any bond issue of the North Tampa Special Road and Bridge District, is for an authorized district purpose, the alternative writ does not show such a guaranty for a lawful district purpose, in that the writ alleges an agreement between individuals and a bank “for the purpose of insuring the satisfactory sale of certain bonds of” the district held by the bank; and also alleges a deposit by such individuals with the bank as the guarantee, which deposit has been taken by the bank. Such transactions between private parties do not show an indebtedness of the district for an authorized district purpose. Road and Bridge District funds can be used only for lawfully authorized district purposes. No such district purpose is shown.
Affirmed.
Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.
Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ford v. Dania Lumber & Supply Co., Inc., 150 Fla. 435 (Fla. 1942)…res judicata good and what is the proper measure of damages if plaintiff prevails? The law of res judicata has many times been declared by this Court. McGregor v. Provident Trust Co., 119 Fla. 718, 162 So. 323; Day v. Weadock, et ux., 104 Fla. 251, 140 So. 668. One essential element is identity of parties. 34 C. J., 915, Black on Judgments (2nd ed.) Section 500, et seq. We held in effect, in Pompano Horse Club Inc. v. State ex rel. Bryan, 93 Fla. 415, 111 So. 801, 52 A. L. R. 51, that where a suit was br…
-
Blanton v. Wm. G. Woodward C. T. A. of the Estate of Clara H. Blanton, 107 Fla. 691 (Fla. 1932)…right to a jury trial on any claim cognizable at law, enures to the complainant as well as to the defendant. Tilton v. Horton, 103 Fla. 497, 137 So. Rep. 801; Norris et ux. v. Eikenberry, 103 Fla. 104, 137 So. Rep. 128; Day v. Weadock, 104 Fla. 251, 140 So. Rep. 668. In the case of Levitt v. Axelson, 102 Fla. 233, 135 So. 553, it was held that “while a court of equity, having once obtained jurisdiction, of a cause, will retain it for all purposes and administer complete relief, yet, in order to authorize relie…
-
Ernesto Sivilla, M.D., P.A. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 614 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…d and determined on the breach of contract claim. We have not overlooked the defendant’s contrary arguments and other points, but are not persuaded thereby. See McLeod v. Continental Ins. Co., 591 So. 2d 621 (Fla.1992); Day v. Weadock, 104 Fla. 251, 140 So. 668 (1932); Barnacle Bill’s Seafood Galley, Inc. v. Ford, 453 So. 2d 165, 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The final summary judgment under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence