JAMES E. HENDRY AND ROBERT A. HENDERSON, SR., APPELLANTS,
v.
FRANK KELLOW, L. A. WINGATE, A. E. RAYMOND, A. B. CUTTER, AND DR. H. E. PARNELL, AS COMMISSIONER OF THE CITY OF FORT MYERS, FLORIDA, A MUNICIPALITY, AND G. E. SNELL AND C. PERRY SNELL, HERETOFORE DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP NAME OF SNELL BROTHERS, 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.
This case involves a challenge to a city's payment for improvements made in an area later annexed into the city. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the legislature's act of expanding the city limits and validating prior contracts rendered the payment valid.
Yes, the city was legally permitted to pay for the improvements. The Legislature's act of expanding the city limits and validating the contract retroactively made the payment lawful.
“Even if the contract with Snell Brothers was invalid in its inception it was one that the Legislature was fully authorized to approve and validate which was accomplished by Chapter 10563, Acts of 1925”
This quote explains the core reasoning for validating the contract despite initial invalidity.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceComplainants sought to enjoin the city of Fort Myers from paying Snell Brothers for improvements made in 'Valencia Terrace.' The improvements were con…
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.
Per Curiam.
Appellants as complainants below filed their amended bill of complaint against appellees seeking to enjoin the city of Fort Myers from paying Snell Brothers for certain improvements contracted by them to be performed on behalf of said City August 12, 1924. Resistance to payment for said improvements is predicated on the ground that they were made in “Valencia Terrace,” a subdivision outside the city limits of Fort Myers. It appears that subsequent to making the contract for the im provements brought in question the Legislature of Florida by Chapter 10563, Acts of 1925, enlarged the city limits of Fort Myers to include “Valencia Terrace” and validated all contracts with reference thereto.
The demurrer on behalf of the city of Fort Myers to the amended bill of complaint was sustained, injunction was denied and the cause comes here on appeal from that order. Even if the contract with Snell Brothers was invalid in its inception it was one that the Legislature was fully authorized to approve and validate which was accomplished by Chapter 10563, Acts of 1925, so the decree of the chancellor is affirmed on authority of Jacksonville v. Basnett, 20 Fla. 525; Smith v. Lange, 20 Fla. 697; Parker v. Jacksonville, 37 Fla. 342, 20 So. 538; Cranor v. Volusia County, 54 Fla. 526, 45 So. 455; Camp v. State, 71 Fla. 381, 72 So. 483; Charlotte Harbor & N. R. Co. v. Wells, 78 Fla. 227, 82 So. 770.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ebersbach Constr. Co. v. Charles Ringling Co., 100 Fla. 1270 (Fla. 1930)…gh it is stipulated that the assessments shall be accepted in payment, and that the city shall not be otherwise liable under the contract, whether the assessments are collectible or not. 62 Fed. R. 565, reversed.” In Hendry et al. v. Kellow et al., 94 Fla. 23, 114 So. R. 235, the Court say: “The legislature may approve, validate, and confirm any irregular or illegal contracts of a municipality which it could have legalized in the first place.” See also Jacksonville v. Basnett, 20 Fla. 525; Smith v. Lon…
Authorities Cited
- Harbor v. Welles, 78 Fla. 227 (Fla. 1919)
- The City of Jacksonville v. Basnett, 20 Fla. 525 (Fla. 1884)
- Cranor v. The Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Volusia Cnty., 54 Fla. 526 (Fla. 1907)
- Parker v. City of Jacksonville, 37 Fla. 342 (Fla. 1896)
- Smith v. Chas. A. Longe, 20 Fla. 697 (Fla. 1884)
- Camp v. The State of Fla. by G. W. Scofield, 71 Fla. 381 (Fla. 1916)