LIZZIE S. SPERRY, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF TAMPA ET AL., 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 decision, upholding the City of Tampa's right to issue paving assessment certificates against a property owner's land. The court found no reversible error in the chancellor's findings regarding the assessments.
The court held that no reversible error was committed by the chancellor in sustaining the paving assessments against the abutting property owners, including the costs and the sufficiency of the petition.
“The record has been examined and as against the finding of the chancellor it is not made to appear that reversible error was committed as to any of these assignments.”
This quote establishes the court's finding that the lower court's decision was not erroneous.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLizzie S. Sperry filed a bill in equity to enjoin the City of Tampa from issuing paving assessment certificates against her property and to cancel exi…
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.
In March, 1927, appellant filed her bill in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida, seek-in gto enjoin the City of ' Tampa from issuing paving assessment certificates against her property abutting on Broad Street and for the cancellation of said assessments. There was an answer to the bill denying all the material allegations thereof; evidence was taken and on final hearing the chancellor sustained the assessments and dismissed the bill. Appeal was taken from that decree.
It is contended here that error was committed in assessing the costs of paving street and alley intersections against the abutting owners; that it was error to assess the costs of engineering fees against the abutting owners; that it was error for the city to substitute concrete curbing for granite curbing; that it was error to assess the entire cost of paving Broad Street against the abutting owners when it is made to appear that the said paving was for a public benefit and that the petition required under Chapter 7718, Acts of 1917, Laws of Florida, as a prerequisite to said paving and the issuance of certificates therefor is insufficient in law.
The record has been examined and as against the finding of the chancellor it is not made to appear that reversible error was committed as to any of these assignments. The final decree is, therefore, affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Strum, J., concurs in the opinion and judgment.
Ellis, C. J. and Brown, J, dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. Thompson, 114 Fla. 833 (Fla. 1934)…roperties, Inc., 93 Fla. 531, 112 So. 555; Baker v. Baker, 94 Fla. 1001, 114 So. 661 ; Rundel v. Gordon, 92 Fla. 1110, 111 So. 386; Johns v. Seeley, 94 Fla. 851, 114 So. 452; Cramer v. Eichelberger, 96 Fla. 683, 118 So. 737; Sperry v. City of Tampa, 96 Fla. 567, 118 So. 816; Roland v. Mathews, 98 Fla. 695, 124 So. 34; Hoffman Construction Co. v. Ward, 97 Fla. 530, 121 So. 800; Shipley-Young Corp. v. Young, 97 Fla. 46, 119 So. 522; Troutman v. Couture, 98 Fla. 889, 124 So. 443; Gold v. City of Tampa, 100 Fl…