W. A. DUTCH, APPELLANT,
v.
PALM BEACH BRIDGE DISTRICT, AND H. N. GAINES, J. M. CROMER, GUS JORDAHN, GEO. A. LONG AND HECTOR HARRIS, AS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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 held that Chapter 7974 Acts of 1919, which created the Palm Beach Bridge District and authorized bond issuances for bridge construction, permitted only two total bond issues: an initial issue and one additional issue if needed. The court reversed the circuit court's validation of a third $100,000 bond issue because the statute's language did not authorize more than two issues.
Section 12 contemplates only one additional bond issue beyond the initial issue. The statute plainly provides that if the first issue "shall not be sufficient," then "another election" may be held for "additional bonds" to complete the work. This language permits only one supplemental issue, not multiple additional issues. The third bond issue was not authorized by the statute.
“the terms of statutes of this character cannot be extended by the courts beyond the import of the language used”
Establishes the principle that statutory interpretation must be limited to the plain language and cannot be expansively construed
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Palm Beach Bridge District was created by statute to build a bridge across Lake Worth with highway approaches. An initial $250,000 bond issue was …
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 Special Taxing Districts cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
It appears that Chapter 7974 Acts of 1919, created a special taxing district called “Palm Beach Bridge District,” and authorized the issuance of bonds to build a bridge across Lake Worth with suitable highway approaches; that under sections 3 to 6 of the Act, an election was held in the district authorizing $250,000.00 of bonds to be issued for the said statutory purpose, which bonds were issued and sold and the proceeds used, and under section 12 of the Act another election was held in the district authoriizng $135,000^00 of bonds to be issued for the same purpose, which bonds were likewise sold and used. Subsequently another issue of $100,000.00 of bonds was authoriezd by an election held in the district to be used for the same purpose. The last issue of bonds was validated by the circuit judge and an appeal was taken from the validating decree.
Section 12 of the Act under' which the third issue of bonds is sought to be justified is as follows: “If the proceeds of the said issue of bonds shall not be sufficient to procure and pay for the said site or sites and right-of-way and for the construction of the said bridge and highway, then said Board of County Commissioners may call and order another election to determine whether or not additional bonds of said district shall be issued to complete such work; and the said election shall be called, held and conducted and the bonds authorized at said election shall be sold and the proceeds thereof used and employed, as hereinbefore provided for the holding of the first election, and the issuance, disposal and use of the proceeds of said bonds. ’ ’
The contention is that the purpose of the Act is to provide for the completion of the bridge and the highway approaches thereto, and that section 12 therefore eontem plates more than two bond issues if needed to complete the purpose designated . But the terms of statutes of this character cannot be extended by the courts beyond the import of the language used; and the terms of the statute plainly contemplate one issue of bonds, and if that “shall not be sufficient,” then “another election” may be had “to determine whether or not additional bonds of said district shall be issued to complete such work.” This clearly is a provision for only one additional bond issue for the designated purpose. The'third issue was not authorized by the. statute, therefore the validating decree is erroneous.
Reversed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Greenberg v. Greenberg, 101 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…d HORTON, J., concur. . See 30 F.S.A.Rule 1.11(b), 1954 Rules of Civil Procedure. . Section 65.03 Ma.Stat., F.S.A.; Cf. Givens v. Givens, 121 Fla. 270, 163 So. 574. . Nolan v. Moore, 81 Fla. 594, 600, 88 So. 601; Dutch v. Palm Beach Bridge Dist., 84 Fla. 504, 94 So. 155; In re Hewett’s Estate, 153 Fla. 137, 13 So. 2d 904; Webb v. Hill, Fla.1954, 75 So. 2d 596, 605. . Orange Theatre Corp. v. Rayherstz Amusement Corp., 3 Cir., 1944, 139 F. 2d 871, certiorari denied Orange Theatre Corp. v. Brandt, 322 U.S…
-
Walker v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co. OF Baltimore, 101 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)…n of the law. It cannot subtract from or amplify the terms of a statute. Such changes are for the Legislature. Cone for the Use of Roberts v. Dean, 136 Fla. 421, 187 So. 571; Nolan v. Moore, 81 Fla. 594, 88 So. 601; Dutch v. Palm Beach Bridge Dist., 84 Fla. 504, 94 So. 155; State ex rel. Claar v. Branning, 85 Fla. 61, 95 So. [*438] 237; Kennedy v. City of Daytona Beach, 132 Fla. 675, 182 So. 228. Affirmed on the authority of Malone v. Howell, 140 Fla. 693, 192 So. 224. STURGIS, C. J., WIGGINTON, J., and…
-
Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Owens, 305 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…n of the law. It cannot subtract from or amplify the terms of a statute. Such changes are for the Legislature. Cone for the Use of Roberts v. Dean, 136 Fla. 421, 187 So. 571; Nolan v. Moore, 81 Fla. 594, 88 So. 601; Dutch v. Palm Beach Bridge Dist., 84 Fla. 504, 94 So. 155; State ex rel. Claar v. Branning, 85 Fla. 61, 95 So. 237; Kennedy v. City of Daytona Beach, 132 Fla. 675, 182 So. 228.” Paragraph (e) of Subsection (2) of Section. 393.11 quoted above provides that “[u]pon receiving the orders and recor…