PAUL BROTHERS, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
LONG BRANCH AND LAKESIDE SPECIAL ROAD AND BRIDGE DISTRICT, AND R. L. DOWLING, MCL. CONOLY AND M. W. GRIFFISS, AS MEMBER OF AND CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SAID DISTRICT, 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 reversed a lower court's decision validating bonds for a special road and bridge district, finding the authorizing statute unconstitutional due to arbitrary and oppressive taxation.
Yes, the statute is invalid and unenforceable because its provisions for special assessments are arbitrary and oppressive, amounting to a deprivation of property without due process.
“it is obvious that the essential provisions of the Act are so arbitrary and oppressive' as tax burdens upon property of small value considered with reference to the multiplied enormous special assessment authorized to be made against it, as that the statute is a palpable abuse of the police and taxation powers of the State that will inevitably deprive the land owners of their property in violation of the State and Federal Constitutions.”
This quote explains the core reasoning for the statute's invalidity.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA special road and bridge district was created by statute to issue $1,000,000 in bonds for road construction. The district encompassed approximately 1…
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 Bond Validation cases and more on FLexlaw
[*707] Per Curiam.-
This suit was brought under the statute to validate $1,000,000.00 of 6% bonds designed to be issued for the construction of roads in a district under Chapter 8888, Acts of 1921, which purports to create and establish the Long Branch and Lakeside Special Road and Bridge District in Clay County, Florida. The validity of the statute is challenged. An appeal was taken from a decree rendered by the Circuit Judge validating the bonds.
It appears by the Act that the district comprises about 150,000 acres of land which it is shown was in 1920 assessed at $353,920.00. The provisions of the Act are too voluminous to be set out here.
Even if Chapter 8888 does not contain distinct and unrelated provisions upon more than one subject and. matter properly connected therewith in violation of Section 16, Article III, of the Constitution, and does not violate Sections 20 and 21, Article III of the Constitution in the provisions regulating the practice of courts of justice, if not also in other provisions, it is obvious that the essential provisions of the Act are so arbitrary and oppressive' as tax burdens upon property of small value considered with reference to the multiplied enormous special assessment authorized to be made against it, as that the statute is a palpable abuse of the police and taxation powers of the State that will inevitably deprive the land owners of their property in violation of the State and Federal Constitutions. This makes the entire Act invalid and unenforceable.
Reversed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
On Petition for Rehearing.
Per Curiam.
The opinion herein was rendered npon the case as presented and the decree reversing the final decree below has relation to the record npon which the decree is predicated. As the decree below was based on the pleadings without evidence as to questions of fact that may be properly raised on the pleadings, the reversal of the decree enables the parties to present and contest any issues of fact that may be appropriate in the case. The necessary effect of the decision of this court is that there was error in sustaining exceptions to the answers that'set up matters affecting the constitutionality of the special Act involved in the litigation.
Language in the petition for rehearing that is manifestly improper will be regarded as eliminated.
Rehearing denied.
Taylor, Whitfield,-Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Martin v. Dade Muck Land Co., 95 Fla. 530 (Fla. 1928)…o., 240 U. S. 55, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 254, unjust and arbitrary discrimination was shown in imposing the assessment burdens thereby denying the equal protection of the laws. See also Paul Bros. v. Long Branch and Lakeside Special Road and Bridge Dist., 83 Fla. 706, 92 South. Rep. 687; Consolidated Land Co. v. Tyler, 88 Fla. 14, 101 South. Rep. 280; Willis v. Special Road & Bridge Dist. No. 2, Os [*580] ceola County, 73 Fla. 446, 74 South. Rep. 495; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. City of Gainesville, 83 Fla. 27…
-
State v. City of Sarasota, 92 Fla. 563 (Fla. 1926)…VIII, of the State Constitution, relating to municipalities, which latter organic provision was not applicable in Consolidated Land Co. v. Tyler, 88 Fla. 14, 101 South. Rep. 280; Paul Bros. v. Long Branch and Lakeside Special Road and Bridge Dist., 83 Fla. 706, 92 South. Rep. 687.…
-
Getzen v. Sumter Cnty., 89 Fla. 45 (Fla. 1925)…l, by due course of law, afford a “remedy” “for any injury” to personal or property rights by any unauthorized or arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of governmental authority. See Paul Bros. v. Long Branch and Lakeside Special Road and Bridge Dist., 83 Fla. 706, 92 South. Rep. 687; Willis v. Special Road & Bridge Dist. No. 2, Osceola County, 73 Fla. 446, 74 South. Rep. 495. An abuse or an arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of a power conferred by law, is not within the intendments of the law, organic or s…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence