C. E. MCRAE, F. E. PLATT, ALBERT CARLTON, H. J. DOWNING AND M. H. HARRISON, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESOTO COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLANTS,
v.
D. L. MCSWAIN, L. L. MORGAN AND F. MARQUS, 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 affirmed a lower court's injunction against county commissioners, finding a statute authorizing bond issuance for a hospital was too indefinite and incomplete to permit county taxation for the project.
The statute is too indefinite and incomplete to permit county taxation for the hospital because it does not specify that the hospital is for a county purpose. Furthermore, the statute does not grant the commissioners the authority to purchase a site or erect a hospital.
“The statute is indefinite and incomplete in that it does not provide that the “general hospital,” for the construction of which county bonds are to be sold and county taxes to be levied, is for or shall be used for a county purpose; and the Act does not authorize the County Commissioners to purchase a site or to erect a hospital.”
This quote explains the primary reasons for the court's decision regarding the statute's deficiencies.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeSoto County Commissioners were authorized by a 1925 act to issue bonds for a county hospital. A chancellor enjoined them from purchasing a site and …
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.
Chapter 10514, Acts of 1925, authorizes the County Commissioners of DeSoto County “to issue and sell the bonds of said county in an amount not to exceed $300,000.00, the proceeds thereof to be used to purchase a site and to erect and equip a general hospital in said county.” The chancellor enjoined the County Commissioners from purchasing a hospital site and from erecting a hospital. A demurrer to the bill of complaint was' overruled and the County Commissioners appealed. The statute is indefinite and incomplete in that it does not provide that the “general hospital,” for the construction of which county bonds are to be sold and county taxes to be levied, is for or shall be used for a county purpose; and the Act does not authorize the County Commissioners to purchase a site or to erect a hospital. Unless the hospital is used for a permissible county purpose, a county tax cannot be levied for its construction or maintenance without violating Section 5, of Article IS, of the State Constitution. The statute does not give the County Commissioners authority to purchase a site or to build a hospital, therefore, the orders appealed from áre affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.