A. P. MCKEOWN ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
H. D. EVANS 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.
This case involves a taxpayer lawsuit seeking to enjoin county commissioners from paying an engineering company for road construction. The Florida Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because the work had already been completed and payments made, rendering the requested injunction ineffectual.
The denial of the temporary injunction was proper because the actions sought to be enjoined had already occurred, making the injunction ineffectual. However, the right to an accounting and restitution for any improperly expended sums may still be pursued.
“It appears that the contracts, charged to have been made in violation of Chapter 5969 Acts of 1909, requiring an advertisement for bids before contracts are let for amounts exceeding $300.00, have been performed and the payments have been made, therefore if an injunction should have been granted, it would now be ineffectual.”
Establishes the factual basis for the court's decision regarding the ineffectual nature of the injunction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTaxpayers sued to prevent county commissioners from paying an engineering company for road construction and to compel the company to refund improperly…
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 Public Funds Expenditure cases and more on FLexlaw
[*35] Per Curiam.
Taxpayers brought suit to enjoin the county commissioners from paying money from the Hernando county bond road fund to an engineering company or to any person upon the approval of the engineering company under contracts with the engineering company, and restrain the engineering company from taking any action towards building, changing or-molesting the roads of the county, and to enjoin the bond trustees and county commissioners of the county from paying or approving bills presented by the engineering company. The bill also prays that the engineering company “be required to account for and refund all sums improperly expended.” A temporary injunction was denied and the complainants appealed.
It appears that the contracts, charged to have been made in violation of Chapter 5969 Acts of 1909, requiring an advertisement for bids before contracts are let for amounts exceeding $300.00, have been performed and the payments have been made, therefore if an injunction should have been granted, it would now be ineffectual. The bill has not been dismissed, and if the parties have a right to an accounting and restitution, they may proceed under this bill of complaint.
The appeal from the interlocutory orders refusing the ¡injunctions applied for is dismissed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Shackleford, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concür.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCormick v. Bond, 75 Fla. 819 (Fla. 1918)…ontract referred to was to run for a period of one year beginning November 6th, 1916. The time covered by the contract has therefore expired and nothing can be accomplished by the suit. This being true the appeal will be dismissed. McKeown v. Evans, 73 Fla. 34, 73 South. Rep. 841. It is so ordered. All concur.…