D. S. BORLAND, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
W. H. TOWLES, ET AL., 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of an injunction sought to prevent Lee County from executing a contract to demolish and rebuild its courthouse using funds anticipated from a five-year tax levy. The court held that county commissioners had statutory authority to make such contracts and levy taxes without advance notice, and that the warrants issued for future payments did not violate constitutional restrictions on county credit.
County commissioners had statutory authority under Chapter 5698 Acts of 1907 to levy building taxes up to five mills annually for five consecutive years and to enter into contracts for courthouse construction without waiting for funds to be collected. The warrants issued for future payments did not violate the Constitution's restrictions on county credit. No clear abuse of discretion or illegality appeared.
“the county commissioners could at an adjourned meeting and without giving notice levy a tax of three mills, for five consecutive years, even though they had previously levied only two mills for two years”
Establishes that commissioners had authority to change and increase the tax levy without advance notice
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLee County Commissioners entered into a contract to demolish the existing courthouse and construct a new one. They increased the building tax levy fro…
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 Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This appeal is from an order denying an injunction to prevent the carrying out of a contract made by the County Commissioners of Lee County to demolish the present court -house building and to erect a new court house building in the county, and to enjoin the issue of warrants for páyments under the contract. It is contended (1) that the county commissioners had no power to make the contract for the erection of a new court house in anticipation of funds to be derived from tax levies made to cover a period of five years; (2) that the warrants issued for the payments and made payable during future five years are illegal; (3) that the tax levy to meet the contract was illegally changed from two mills for two years to three mills for five years; (4) that the contract made is an abuse of discretion; (5) that the contract is illegal.
Chapter 5698 Acts of 1907, provides that if the county commissioners shall duly determine that it is necessary to erect a court house or jail, or both, “they may levy a building tax not exceeding five mills per annum, for five consecutive years in lieu of all other county building tax.” Under this authority the county commissioners could at an adjourned meeting and without giving notice levy a tax of three mills, for five consecutive years, even though they had previously levied only two mills for two years. No notice is required to be given for the tax levy to be valid. The statute does not require that the funds derived from successive tax levies shall be collected in whole or in part before the power to contract for the erection of a court house can be exercised; and the courts will not control the discretion of the county commissioners in making the contract when they act in good faith and within their statutory powers. A clear case of abuse of authority is not made to appear. See Osban v. Cooper, 63 Fla. 542, 58 South. Rep.
50. The statute does not prescribe the form and character of the warrants to be issued by the county commissioners in payment of county indebtedness; and the warrants to be issued in this case payable at future dates do not in effect loan the credit of the county to any one in violation of Section 10 of Article IX of the Constitution. The matters complained of may indicate a lack of proper appreciation of official responsibility; but they do not clearly slow fraud or illegality in the contract or in the amount agreed to be paid, '-(] as to justify a court of equity in annulling the proceedings that are authorized by statute.
Order affirmed.
- Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford, Cockrell, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tapers v. Pichard, 124 Fla. 549 (Fla. 1936)…It was the inclusion of this amount in the consideration for the contract as carrying charges on the certificates of payment which appellant contends was without legal authority and had the effect of invalidating the contract. In Borland v. Towles, 69 Fla. 125, 67 So. 640, a parallel question was presented to this Court and was resolved against the contention of appellant. It is quite true that the opinion does not directly discus's this question, but the pleadings show that it was presented and in findin…
-
The Cnty. of Leon v. State, 122 Fla. 505 (Fla. 1936)…' without the necessity of a .freeholders’ election to approve same, was upheld as; valid, notwithstanding Amended Section 6 of Article IX of the State Constitution. Stated another way, the argument is that under the authorities (Borland v. Towles, 69 Fla. 125, 67 Sou. Rep. 640; Marshall v. State, 88 Fla. 329, 102 Sou. Rep. 650) existing prior to the adoption of Amended Section 6 of Article IX of the Constitution, the Board of County Commissioners of Leon County were lawfully empowered to-determine the ne…1 / 2
-
Bowden v. Ricker, 70 Fla. 154 (Fla. 1915)…sented. The courts will not control the discretionary acts of county commissioners done within their statutory powers where fraud or abuse of discretion is not clearly [*161] shown. Osban v. Cooper, 63 Fla. 542, 58 South. Rep. 50; Borland v. Towles, 69 Fla. 125, 67 South. Rep. 640. The statute provides that the delinquent tax lists shall be published “in some newspaper published in the county * * * said newspaper to be selected by the board of county commissioners at their first regular meeting in Februar…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Osban v. Cooper, 63 Fla. 542 (Fla. 1912)