STATE EX REL. GEORGE BUSH
v.
J. S. SIMPSON, ET AL.
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.
Florida's Governor Bush sought mandamus to compel Hernando County commissioners to include bond interest and sinking fund appropriations in their fiscal year 1933-1934 budget and to levy sufficient taxes. The Supreme Court granted the peremptory writ, holding that the county commissioners had a mandatory duty to appropriate funds for outstanding bond obligations.
Mandamus is the appropriate remedy. The return filed by the Board of County Commissioners was insufficient, and the peremptory writ of mandamus should issue, requiring the commissioners to include bond interest and sinking fund appropriations in the budget and the tax assessor to assess and levy the necessary taxes on the 1933 assessment roll.
“The return should be held insufficient and the peremptory writ should be issued on authority of the opinions and judgments of this Court in the following cases: Columbia County Commissioners v. King, 13 Fla. 451; State v. Lehman, 100 Fla. 1313, 131 Sou. 533; Rountree v. State, 102 Fla. 246, 135 Sou. 888; State v. Baskin, 102 Fla. 329, 136 Sou. 262; Little River Bank & Trust Co. v. Johnson, 102 Fla. 828, 136 Sou. 452.”
Establishes the court's rationale for issuing the peremptory writ, relying on prior case law establishing the county's mandatory duty to fund bond obligations.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHernando County had outstanding bonds with past-due interest and interest maturing before October 1, 1934. The Board of County Commissioners failed to…
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.
Alternative writ of mandamus issued herein to the Respondents requiring them to immediately convene and revise their estimate of expenses (annual county budget for the fiscal year 1933-1934) so as to include therein an appropriation item sufficient to pay the past due interest and *628the interest which will mature prior to October 1, 1934, upon the outstanding bonds of the issue of bonds described in paragraph 2 of the alternative writ and appropriation of a sum sufficient to meet the amount annually required to. be raised as a sinking fund, to meet the principal of the said bonds and to levy a tax for the year 1933 upon all the taxable property in Hernando County sufficient to assure the payment of all past due interest and interest which will mature prior to October 1, 1934, upon all the outstanding bonds described in paragraph 2 of the writ and sufficient to meet the amount annually .required to be raised as a sinking fund to meet the principal of the said bonds. And the writ required the Tax Assessor, one of the Respondents, as' Tax Assessor, to assess, enter, calculate and carry out said taxes so levied on the 1933 assessment roll of Hernando County, Florida, and further commanded the Clerk of the Circuit Court, as Ex Officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Hernando County to execute and certify all papers, certificates and resolutions which he is required by law to execute and certify in the performance of the duties required by the writ, etc., or to show cause why same should not be done.
Return was filed by the respondents, Simpson, Skinner, Ayers, Bean and Harville as and constituting the Board of . County Commissioners of Hernando County. No return has been filed by the other respondents named.
Motion was filed for peremptory writ of mandamus, notwithstanding the return, and the cause is before us on this motion.
The return should be held insufficient and the peremptory writ should be issued on authority of the opinions and judgments of this Court in the following cases: Columbia County Commissioners v. King, 13 Fla. 451; State v. *629Lehman, 100 Fla. 1313, 131 Sou. 533; Rountree v. State, 102 Fla. 246, 135 Sou. 888; State v. Baskin, 102 Fla. 329, 136 Sou. 262; Little River Bank & Trust Co. v. Johnson, 102 Fla. 828, 136 Sou. 452. It is so ordered.
Let peremptory writ issue.
Davis, C. J., and Terrell, J. J., concur.
Ellis and Brown, J. J., dissent.
(dissenting). — I think the answer presents a question of fact that must be met and there, is a question whether any duty is required of county commissioners to levy a tax in any one year to cover past defaults in tax payments'.
Ellis, J.
(dissenting). — I think the answer presents a question of fact that must be met and there, is a question whether any duty is required of county commissioners to levy a tax in any one year to cover past defaults in tax payments'.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sholtz v. State, 121 Fla. 477 (Fla. 1935)…nd in which the holders of the said maturing coupons are entitled to share only on a pro rata basis; that is to say, upon-the basis which the amount collected bears to the whole amount due.” Referring to the case of State, ex rel. Bush, v. Simpson, 112 Fla. 627, 150 Sou. 800, which is the case referred to in paragraph 8 of the return, peremptory writ was granted on authority of the following cases: “Columbia County Commissioners v. King, 13 Fla. 451; State v. Lehman, 100 Fla. 1313, 131 Sou. 533; Rountree…
-
State v. Shelfer, 118 Fla. 14 (Fla. 1934)…levy, the time having expired to apply the same to the 1933 assessment roll, City of Palmetto v. Klemm, 108 Fla. 455, 146 Sou. Rep. 558; State, ex rel. Klemm, v. Baskin, 111 Fla. 667, 150 Sou. Rep. 517; State, ex rel. Bush, v. Simpson, 112 Fla. 627, 150 Sou. Rep. 800. Judgment in accordance with foregoing opinion will be entered. Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.…
-
State v. Vickers, 116 Fla. 794 (Fla. 1934)…ng a levy to be made only as an omitted tax for the fiscal year 1932, sufficient to pay the relator’s interest coupons. This must be done by placing same in the 1934 budget and making a present special levy to cover it. State ex rel Bush v. Simpson, 112 Fla. 627, 150 Sou. Rep. 800; State ex rel. Supreme Forest Woodmen Circle v. Snow, 113 Fla. 241, 151 Sou. Rep. 393; State es rel. Gillespie v. County of Bay, 12 Fla. 687, 151 Sou. Rep. 10; State ex rel. Rempsew v. Smith 105 Fla. 368, 141 Sou. Rep. 318. The r…
Authorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Dos Anigos, Inc. v. Lehman, 100 Fla. 1313 (Fla. 1930)
- Cnty. Comm'rs of Columbia Cnty. v. King, 13 Fla. 451 (Fla. 1869)
- Rountree v. State, 102 Fla. 246 (Fla. 1931)
- State v. Baskin, 102 Fla. 329 (Fla. 1931)
- Smith v. Fay Gruner, 102 Fla. 828 (Fla. 1931)
- Little River Bank & Tr. Co. v. Johnson, 102 Fla. 828 (Fla. 1931)