THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN RELATIONE, J. W. GILLESPIE, L. F. RODGERS AND JAMES G. MARTIN, RELATORS,
v.
H. P. ANDERSON, MAYOR COMMISSIONER, J. G. WILLIAMS, A. H. STRICKLAND, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FORT MEADE, FLORIDA; J. D. PENNINGTON, AS CITY MANAGER, CITY CLERK, CITY TAX ASSESSOR, CITY TAX COLLECTOR AND CITY TREASURER OF THE CITY OF FORT MEADE, FLORIDA, RESPONDENTS
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 issued a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring the City of Fort Meade and its officials to revise the city's budget and tax levy to include sufficient funds to pay interest coupons owed to bondholders. The respondents' partial compliance was deemed insufficient, and the court ordered full compliance with the original alternative writ.
The respondents' return was insufficient to demonstrate compliance with the alternative writ, and no valid defense was offered against it. Therefore, a peremptory writ of mandamus should issue requiring full compliance with the original commands.
“The return of the respondents is insufficient to show compliance with the commands of the alternative-writ and nothing is offered in bar of the alternative writ. Peremptory writ should issue.”
The court's holding that partial compliance with the alternative writ is legally insufficient and that a peremptory writ must issue to compel full compliance.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRelators Gillespie, Rodgers, and Martin sought mandamus relief against Fort Meade city officials to compel collection and payment of approximately $27…
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 Tax Levy cases and more on FLexlaw
Alternative writ of mandamus issued to the respondents herein on October 21st, 1932, commanding them as and constituting the City Commission of Fort Meade, Florida, to instanter convene as said City Commission and revise the budget and tax levy of said city for the year 1932-1933 so as to include therein a sufficient amount to be raised by taxation against all the taxable property in *505said city for the ensuing fiscal year to pay the interest coupons as described herein and to certify the same as' required by law to the respondent, J. D. Pennington, as Tax Assessor of said City; that you, J. D. Pennington, as Tax Assessor of said City, calculate and carry out said taxes and assess the same on the tax assessment roll of said city for ensuing fiscal year and certify the same in accordance with law; that you, J. D. Pennington, as Tax Collector of said city, proceed to collect the same in the manner prescribed by’ law; that you, J. D. Pennington, as City Treasurer of said city, to keep said moneys so collected in a special fund to be paid to relators upon presentation and surrender of a like amount of bonds and/or interest coupons; that you, H. P. Anderson, Mayor Commissioner, J. K. Williams and A. PI. Strickland, as and constituting the City Commission of the City of Fort Meade, Florida, and J. D. Pennington as City Manager, City Clerk, City Tax Assessor, City Tax Collector and City Treasurer of the city of Fort Meade, Florida, do pass, adopt, approve, sign, certify, execute, and deliver all necessary ordinances, receipts, papers, certificates, warrants, and vouchers necessary to be done in the performance of the duties herein required;”
“Or that you, and each of you appear before our Supreme Court within and for the state of Florida, in the court room in the city of Tallahassee, the capital, on the 31st day of October, 1932, at 10 o’clock of the morning of that day, and show cause why you refuse so to do.”
The items for the payment of which the alternative writ required the assssment to be made aggregated $27,840.00.
The respondents have presented a'return showing compliance with the commands of the writ to the extent-of making a levy capable of producing, if paid, the sum of $16,028.30 to apply on the interest payments required by the writ.
*506There is presented a motion for the peremptory writ to issue.
• The return of the respondents is insufficient to show compliance with the commands of the alternative-writ and nothing is offered in bar of the alternative writ. Peremptory writ should issue. It is so ordered.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., poncur.