KENNETH M. KEEFE, JOHN S. HARRIS, HENRY HART AND FRED P. HAYWARD, APPELLANTS,
v.
HENRY W. ADAMS, JR., R. G. BLANC, WILLIAM J. CERMACK, J. WALTER LANIER, GLENN MILLER, FREDERICK W. WEBSTER AND ALVIN J. WOOD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AND CONSTITUTING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA, W. M. COTTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CITY MANAGER OF SAID CITY, FRANK WILSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE OF SAID CITY, AND THE CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 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 granted a temporary restraining order enjoining St. Petersburg city officials from expending bond interest funds appropriated by Ordinance 737-A and a tax levy resolution for any purpose other than interest on municipal bonds. The court exercised its constitutional authority to issue writs necessary to protect appellants' rights and the subject matter of the appeal.
The court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining all named city officials and the city itself from expending any part of the funds appropriated for bond interest on any other office, department, division, purpose, or object, whether or not such funds had been credited to other city accounts.
“it is indispensable to protect the rights of appellants and the subject matter involved in this appeal that this order be issued”
The court's finding of necessity for issuing the restraining order to preserve appellants' rights during the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of St. Petersburg adopted Appropriation Ordinance 737-A and a tax levy resolution on August 17, 1931, designating specific percentages of col…
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 Temporary Restraining Order cases and more on FLexlaw
An appeal having been entered herein from an order denying a temporary restraining order to prevent the defendants from expending for any office, department, division, purpose or object other than for interest on bonds any part of the moneys appropriated by the Appropriation Ordinance of the City of St. Petersburg, Florida, numbered 737-A and the tax levy resolution of said City, both dated August 17, 1931, for interest on bonds of said City of St. Petersburg, and it appearing to the Court that it is indispensable to protect the rights of appellants and the subject matter involved in this appeal that this order be issued
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the power of this Court conferred 'by Section 5 of Article V of the Constitution of this State to “issue all writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction” it is hereby or*732dered, adjudged and decreed that the appellees and each of them, to-wit: Henry W. Adams, Jr., R. G. Blanc, William J. Cermack, J. Walter Lanier, Glenn Miller, Frederic W. Webster and Alvin J. Wood, individually and as and constituting the City Council of the City of St. Petersburg, Florida, W. M. Cotton, individually and as City Manager of said city, Frank Wilson, individually and as Director of Finance of said City, and The City of St. Petersburg, a municipal corporation, and their respective successors, agents and employees are hereby restrained and enjoined until the further order of this Court, from expending for any office, departmlent, division, purpose or object other than for interest on bonds any part of the moneys appropriated by the Appropriation Ordinance of the City of St. Petersburg 737-A and the tax levy resolution of said City, dated August 17,1931, for interest on bonds of said City of St. Petersburg, which moneys so appropriated are 50 per cent of all money collected for unpledged taxes which were delinquent on June 30, 1931, and 54.06 per cent of all moneys collected for or in respect to taxes for the year 1931 on property located in the area or district described in Section 1 of said tax levy resolution, 52.06 per cent of all moneys collected for or in respect to taxes for the year 1931 on property located in the area or district described in Section 3 of said tax levy resolution, 49.82 per cent of all moneys collected for or in respect to taxes for the year 1931 on property located in the area or district described in Section 5 of said tax levy resolution, and 44.57 per cent of all moneys collected for or in respect to taxes for the year 1931 on property located in the area or district described in Section 7 of said tax levy resolution whether said moneys so appropriated to bond interest have been credited to other accounts of said city or not.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Treat v. State, 118 Fla. 899 (Fla. 1935)…County Commissioners of Columbia County v. King, 13 Fla. 451; State, ex rel. DuPont Ball, Inc., v. Livingston, 104 Fla. 33, 139 Sou. Rep. 360; Humphreys v. State, ex rel. Palm Beach Co., 108 Fla. 92, 145 Sou. Rep. 858; State, ex rel. Keefe v. Adams, 106 Fla. 731, 733, 143 Sou. Rep. 644; Little River Bank & Trust Co. v. Johnson, 105 Fla. 212, 141 Sou. Rep. 141; McNally v. State, ex rel. Bond Realization Corp., 112 Fla. 434, 150 Sou. Rep. 751; McNally v. State, ex rel. Bond Realization Corp. (second appeal),…