BROWARD COUNTY, ET AL.
v.
STATE EX REL. ALTON M. AKE
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.
Broward County officials challenged a circuit court judgment that issued a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring them to levy taxes sufficient to pay both current and past-due principal and interest on school district bonds. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that mandamus should issue to compel a single year tax levy encompassing arrearages from three prior years.
A writ of mandamus should be issued commanding the tax levy to cover both current and past-due principal and interest obligations of school district bonds, requiring payment of arrearages accumulated over three years within a single tax year.
“The point presented is whether or not a writ of mandamus should be issued commanding a tax levy in one year for payment, not only of current principal and interest of special tax school district bonds, but also for past due principal and interest which matured during three previous years.”
Clearly states the central legal question before the court regarding the scope of mandamus relief for bond obligations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlton M. Ake, a bondholder of bonds issued by special tax school district number 3 in Broward County, sought mandamus relief against the Board of Coun…
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 Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
This writ of error was taken to review a judgment of the Circuit Court of Broward County awarding to relator, a bondholder of bonds issued by a special tax school district number 3 of that county, a peremptory writ of mandamus to require the Board of County Commissioners of Broward County to levy a rate of taxation sufficient to pay the principal and interest coupons of relator’s bonds. The writ runs to the members of the Board of County Commissioners, to the County Tax Assessor and the County Tax Collector, as well as to the Board of Public Instruction of Broward County and the several individual members thereof.
The point presented is whether or not a writ of mandamus should be issued commanding a tax levy in one year for payment, not only of current principal and interest of special tax school district bonds, but also for past due principal and interest which matured during three previous years. The circuit court held in the affirmative and issued a peremptory'writ carrying into effect such holding.
Motion to dismiss the writ of error has been made by the defendant in error, the litigating bondholder, on the ground that the question raised in the brief of counsel for plaintiffs in error is raised for the first time in this case in the Supreme Court and is not predicated on any defense made by the respondents in the lower court. An examination of the transcript shows, however, that error is assigned on the circuit court’s order denying the motion to quash the alternative writ, overruling certain defenses set up in the return to the alternative writ, and in awarding the peremptory writ as against the objections interposed by the respondents.
*141The Court is of the opinion that the assignments of error are sufficient to warrant a consideration of the questions of law argued by the plaintiffs in error in their brief, which the Court permitted to be received and filed before any objection was made by the defendant in error that it was out of time. Therefore, the motion to dismiss the writ of error will be denied.
In view of the important questions of law involved in the considération and determination of this writ of error on its merits, it is ordered that the defendant in error do file his brief herein within twenty days after the filing of this opinion and that this cause be advanced on the calendar for oral argument before the Court en banc at some convenient date to be set by the Clerk in the preparation of the • Court’s calendar for oral arguments.
Let an order be entered accordingly.
Whitfield, and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
The record and briefs in this cause have been inspected. The sole question presented is whether or not a writ of mandamus.should be issued commanding a tax levy in one year for the payment, not only of current principal and interest of special tax school district bonds, but also for past due principal and interest which matured during the three previous years.
This question was raised and answered in State of Florida ex rel. Supreme Forest Woodmen Circle, a Corporation, v. Russell G. Snow, Charles L. Brown, and Lawrence O. Hansen, as and constituting the Board of Public' Instruction for the County of Broward, State of Florida; Ulric J. Bennett, as Secretary of the Board of Public Instruction for the County of Broward, State of Florida; and J. H. Juvenal, H. L. Lyons, J. B. Barnes, B. W. Strickland, and F. L. Neville, as and constituting the Board of County *142Commissioners of Broward County, Florida; B. A. Cromartie, as Tax Assessor of Broward County, Florida; and J. A. Warren, as Tax' Collector of Broward County, Florida,' decided this date.
■ The judgment below is consequently affirmed on authority of the law announced in that case.
Affirmed.
•Davis, C. J:, and Whitfield, Ellis and Buford, J. J., concur.
■Brown, J., absent and not participating because of illness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y OF the United States & Marjorie C. Walsh v. Nichols, 84 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1956)…ere can be no doubt that the circumstances here were such as would have entitled the insurance company to file a bill of interpleader in equity. See Miller v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 148 Fla. 1, 3 So. 2d 519; McKinnon v. Reliance Ins. Co., 113 Fla. 370, 151 So. 699; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Bancroft, 122 Fla. 10, 164 So. 515. But it is equally true that a judicial decision in the suits filed against it by claimants would determine, once and for all, the proper disposition of the fund in its hands; and the con…
-
Miller v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 148 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1941)…petitioner also contends that the court erred in allowing the complainant in interpleader reasonable attorney’s fees. We think that the facts in this case bring it clearly within the purview of McKinnon, et oil., v. Reliance Ins. Co., 113 Fla. 370, 151 Sou. 699, and that the court below in allowing the attorney’s fees followed our conclusions in that case. The order dismissing the complainant in the bill for interpleader was a final decree insofar as the insurance company was concerned but the case procee…
-
Bache Halsey Stuart Shields Inc. v. Witous, 411 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…o is entitled to sue in interpleader is ordinarily permitted to recover his reasonable attorney’s fees from the inter-pleaded fund. Miller v. Gulf Life Insurance Co., 148 Fla. 1, 3 So. 2d 519 (1941); McKinnon v. Reliance Insurance Co., 113 Fla. 370, 151 So. 699 (1933). However, in Ellison v. Riddle, 166 So. 2d 840, 841 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964), after referring to the rule of civil procedure on interpleader, this court said: Even though an interpleader action may be maintained under this rule, it does not necess…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence