J. W. SCALLY, APPELLANT,
v.
C. G. MEMINGER AND OTHERS, 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.
This case involves a taxpayer's challenge to the validation of municipal bonds. The court affirmed the dismissal of the suit, finding the taxpayer's arguments regarding the bond validation procedure and the advertisement of the election to be without merit.
The court held that the taxpayer could not question the constitutionality of the bond validation act because he did not belong to the class he claimed was discriminated against and he failed to point out any defects in the bond issue. The court also rejected the argument that weekly advertisements for five weeks constituted only a five-day advertisement.
“The complainant shows affirmatively he does not belong to the class against which he asserts there is a discrimination; and again he fails to point out, as an original proposition, any defects in the bond issue, or that the court treated its order in the special statutory proceedings as of any binding force.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for not allowing the appellant to question the constitutionality of the bond validation act.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA resident taxpayer of Lakeland filed a bill to enjoin the issuance of bonds that had been validated under a special charter and statutory procedure. …
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 Standing To Challenge Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
J. W. Scalley, a resident-tax payer of the City of Lakeland, filed his bill to enjoin the issuance of bonds, voted under its special charter, Chapter 6363, Laws of 1911, which bonds had been validated by the Circuit Judge under special procedure provided by Chapter 6237 of the same session. A demurrer to the second amended bill was sustained and the suit dismissed.
In his brief here, the complainant makes but two contentions.
It is first insisted that the act providing a speedy procedure validating county and municipal bonds is unconstitutional, in that it fails to permit a non-resident citizen of the State owning property in Lakeland to intervene to contest the legality of the bonds proposed to be issued. There are two conclusive reasons why the constitutionality of the Act may not be questioned on this record. The complainant shows affirmatively he does not belong to the class against which he asserts there is a discrimination; and again he fails to point out, as an original proposition, any defects in the bond issue, or that the court treated its order in the special statutory proceedings as of any binding force.
• The only defect alleged in the proceedings leading up to the bond issue is at least unique. The special charter requires that the proposed bond “election shall be advertised for not less than thirty days prior to the date upon which it shall be held, in a newspaper published in the City of Lakeland.’’ The publication was made once a week for five successive weeks immediately prior to the election, but the novel statement is made that this con stitutes an advertisement for five days only. We are not favored with citation of authority for this construction, and we shall content ourselves by citing one adjudged case precisely to the contrary. Montford v. Allen, 111 Ga. 18, 36 S. E. Rep. 305.
The decree is affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford and Hocker, J. J., concur;
Taylor, J., absent on ¿ccount of illness, concurred in the opinion as prepared.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Rivers H. Buford v. Watkins, 88 Fla. 392 (Fla. 1923)…lagg, 235 U. S. 571, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 167; Hendrick v. State of Maryland, 235 U. S. 610, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 140; State ex rel. Clarkson v. Phillips, 70 Fla. 340, 70 South. Rep. 367; Stinson v. State, 63 Fla. 42, 58 South. Rep. 722; Scally v. Meminger, 64 Fla. 464, 60 [*406] South. Rep. 180; Adams v. American Agricultural Chemical Co., 78 Fla. 362, 82 South. Rep. 850; 12 C. J. 768. And even if the classification based on 100,000 population is invalid, it will not affect the validity of the remainder of the Ac…
-
State v. Juvenal, 118 Fla. 487 (Fla. 1935)…laws. State, ex rel. Johnson v. City of Sarasota, 92 Fla. 563, 109 Sou. Rep. 473; State, ex rel. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Board of Equalizers, 84 Fla. 592, 94 Sou. Rep. 681; State v. Phillips, 70 Fla. 340, 70 Sou. Rep. 367; Scalley v. Meminger, 64 Fla. 464, 60 Sou. Rep. 180, 12 Corpus Juris, 783. The courts have no substantive power to nullify duly authenticated legislative enactments. Douglas v. Webber, 99 Fla. 755, 128 Sou. Rep. 613. Courts have the power to declare laws unconstitutional only as a…
-
State v. The Town of Forest Park, 87 Fla. 477 (Fla. 1924)…being issued only weekly. It would then follow that not being published on the intervening days, it was published only on the days of the issue of the paper, or five days, in this instance. Such was the contention in the case of Scally v. Mominger, 64 Fla. 464, 60 South. Rep. 180, where this Court said: “The only defect alleged in the proceedings leading up to the bond issue is at least unique. The special charter requires that the proposed bond ‘election shall be advertised for not less than thirty days…