CITY OF ORLANDO, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
ORLANDO WATER AND LIGHT COMPANY, S. C. ADAMS, JULIUS KING, ANNIE L. KIMBALL, GEORGE J. DAVIS, J. M. BAAS, GEORGE I. RUSSELL, GALENA JOUETT, L. B. HAMLIN, JOHN F. DA-KLYN AND GEORGE I. RUSSELL, AGENT, 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 denied a rehearing, clarifying that the word 'whereupon' in a statute regarding city annexation does not imply immediate action and that failure to obtain a court order does not grant authority to proceed with annexation after objections are filed.
No, the court did not overlook the provision. The word 'whereupon' does not mean immediately, and the failure to procure a statutory order did not grant the city authority to proceed with annexation after objections were properly filed.
“Whereupon the said Circuit Court shall order notice of said application to be served upon the mayor of said city or town and appoint a day for the hearing of said application, and all further action in the premises by the said city or town shall thereupon be stayed until the further order of the said court.”
The statutory provision at issue regarding the stay of city action during annexation proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error, the City of Orlando, petitioned for a rehearing, arguing the court overlooked a statute that purportedly stayed further action…
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.
Per Curiam.
In a petition for rehearing counsel for the plaintiff in error suggest that the “court has overlooked the force and effect of that part of Section 722 of the Revised Statutes of Florida, which enacts: ‘Whereupon the said Circuit Court shall order notice of said application to be served upon the mayor of said city or town and appoint a day for the hearing of said application, and all further action in the premises by the said city or town shall thereupon be stayed until the further order of the said court.’ ”
The point was not overlooked by the court. The word “whereupon” as used in the beginning of the above quota tion does not mean inmiediately. Burslem v. Attenborough, L. R. & C. P. Cas. 122; 12 Encyclopaedia of the Laws of England; 30 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 515. The word “thereupon” in the same quotation refers to time; but as stated in the opinion, in view of the provision of the statute that “if no objection is filed as aforesaid within the said thirty days, the said city or town may proceed by ordinance to annex the said tract of land,” the mere failure to procure the statutory order did not confer authority upon the city to proceed after objections were properly filed under the statute.
A rehearing is denied.
. Shackleford, C. J., and Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ., concur. Taylor, P. J., and Hocker and Parkhill, JJ.. concur in the opinion.