D. L. MCSWAIN, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
SPECIAL ROAD AND BRIDGE DISTRICT NUMBER TWO, DESOTO COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. | 1921-04-20
81 Fla. 565 Florida Supreme Court (1921) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Taxpayers challenged the validation of bonds proposed to be issued by a Special Road and Bridge District, arguing that the election notice failed to comply with statutory requirements. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the lower court's validation, finding that the notice was substantially defective because it did not contain the estimated cost of the roads and bridges as required by statute.


Holding

The notice was substantially defective and insufficient to authorize the bond issuance. The statutory requirement for an estimated cost statement is material, and when governmental subdivisions issue bonds under statutory authority, all material requirements must be substantially complied with or the bonds will be invalid.


Key Quotes

“the notice does not contain a statement of the estimated cost of the roads and bridges as is expressly required by the statute”

Identifies the material defect in the election notice that made the bond validation invalid

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The Special Road and Bridge District Number Two in DeSoto County, Florida held an election to determine whether to form a special district and issue $…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Whitfield, J.

Whitfield, J.

Statutory proceedings were brought to validate bonds proposed to be issued by the road and bridge district. The court validated the bonds, and the intervenors, taxpayers, appealed as provided by the statute. Chapter 6237, Acts of 1911; Sec. 4, Chap. 6879, Acts of 1915; Secs. .1647, 1649 and 1664, Rev. Gen. Stats. 1921. Section 3, Chapter 6208, Acts of 1911, provides that the notice of election under which the Special Eoad and Bridge District was formed and the issue of bonds was authorized, /'shall set out the territory proposed to be included in the Special Eoad and Bridge District, a general description of the roads and bridges proposed to be constructed, together with the estimated cost of same and the manner in which payment for the construction of same is to be made.”

The notice given states that the election was “to determine whether or not the said territory shall be constituted into a Special Eoad and Bridge District of DeSoto County, Florida, and the proposed roads and bridges thereby constructed and, that if constructed, to determine whether or not the improvements and road construction shall be paid for by the issue and sale of bonds of the said Special Eoad and Bridge District to the amount of $60,-000.00 as is specified in the petition therefor.”

The notice designates the territory to be included in the special road and bridge district, and a general description is given of the roads and bridges proposed to be constructed; but the notice does not contain a statement of the estimated cost of the roads and bridges as is expressly required by the statute. The statement in the notice that the election was called to determine whether or not the improvements and road construction shall be paid for by the issue and salé of bonds to the amount of $60,000.00 as specified in the petition therefor,” is not a statement of “the estimated cost” of the roads and bridges, and the petition referred to was not made and published as a part of the notice. The notice is insufficient to authorize the issue of the bonds. Where bonds of a governmental subdivision are to be issued by administrative officers under statutory authority, the requirement's of the statute conferring the authority must be substantially complied with in all material particulars or the bonds will not be valid, in the absence of permissible confirming or validating statutes. As the notice was substantially defective, the validation of the bonds was error. If further action is taken with a view to issuing bonds for the district, attention should be given to the principle announced in Willis v. Special Road and Bridge District No. 2, Osceola County, Florida, 73 Fla. 446, 74 South. Rep. 495, that “the statute authorizing the formation of Special Road and Bridge Districts in a county, contemplates the formation of districts with some fair reference to the advantages accruing therefrom to the persons and property bearing the tax burdens assumed for the construction and maintenance of such roads and bridges.”

Reversed.

Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Jackson Lumber Co. v. Walton Cnty., 95 Fla. 632 (Fla. 1928)
    …Board of Commissioners, 239 U. S. 478, 60 Law Ed., 392; Kansas City S. R. Co. v. Road Imp. Dist. No. 6, 65 Law ed., text page 1157; Kansas City S. R. Co. v. Road Imp. Dist. No. 3, 69 Law ed., text p. 342; McSwain v. Special Road and Bridge District, 81 Fla. 565, 88 So. 479; Norwood v. Baker, 172 U. S. 269, 43 Law ed., 443; Gast Realty and Imp. Co. v. Schneder, 240 U. S. 55, 60 Law ed. 523; Keen v. Jefferson County (Ala.) 33 So. 437, and other eases. With the exception of the Getzen case, which we have alre…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw