THE COUNTY OF PINELLAS, ET AL.,
v.
CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG
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 upheld a temporary restraining order preventing Pinellas County from disbursing tax revenues collected from St. Petersburg to anyone other than the City, holding that equity jurisdiction is proper where the alternative remedy of mandamus would require multiple suits.
The trial court's temporary restraining order was proper because although mandamus provided a remedy at law, it was neither full, adequate, nor complete, as it would only reach funds currently on hand and would require multiple successive suits as additional funds were collected.
“Such remedy exists, but it may neither be full, adequate nor complete.”
Establishes that even though mandamus was theoretically available, it did not provide an adequate alternative remedy to equity jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of St. Petersburg sought to restrain Pinellas County Commissioners from paying out tax funds collected from real estate and personal property…
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 Multiplicity Of Suits cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal here is from an order temporarily restraining the County Commissioners of Pinellas County from paying out certain money alleged to be in the hands of the County Commissioners in the following language :
“It Is Therefore Ordered, Adjudged- and Decreed, .that the defendants, County of Pinellas and E. H. Beckett, E. Byrd McMullen, J. R. Thomas, C. R. Carter, and W. B. Harris, their servants, agents and employees, be and the same, and each of them, is hereby restrained and enjoined from paying out any funds now or hereafter coming into their possession from taxes levied upon real estate or personal property situated within the limits of the City of St. Petersburg for road and bridge purposes other than fifty (50%) per; centum thereof to which said county is under the law entitled to until the further order of the Court. That the plaintiff enter into a bond without surety pursuant to Chapter 16245, Acts of 1933, Laws of Florida, in the sum of Five Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollars, conditioned to pay to the defendant such damages that it may suffer in the event such restraining order is dissolved.
“Said bond to be approved by the Court.
“Done and Ordered, This 25th day of January, A. D. 1934.”
Appellants contend that the complainant in the court below was not entitled to a restraining order because it had a certain, full, adequate and complete remedy at law to enforce the payment of the money due to the City by the County. That is, that the City could coerce the County by *584mandamus to pay oveij to the City whatever fund was on hand due to the City from the source named in the Order.
Such remedy exists, but it may neither be full, adequate nor complete.
The City, under numerous holdings of this Court, is entitled to have the fund involved paid over to it. City of Sanford v. Orange County, 54 Fla. 600, 45 Sou. 480; Hillsborough County v. City of St. Petersburg, 57 Fla. 50, 48 Sou. 976.
This remedy would only reach the funds on hand and when other funds should be likewise collected other suits in mandamus might be required, and it is made to appear by-the allegations of the Bill of Complaint would be required, to enforce payment to the City of its part thereof.
That the resort to equity will prevent the necessity of a multiplicity of suits is sufficient to warrant equity in assuming jurisdiction. Realty Bond & Share Co. v. Englar, 104 Fla. 329, 143 Sou. 152.
The Order appealed from should be affirmed. It is SO' ordered.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C. G. J. Corp. v. Hurwitz, 123 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…ubstantially in the same way by the acts of the defendants and seek the same remedy and, subject to appropriate proof, their rights can be adjudged in one decree, thereby preventing a multiplicity of suits. Pinellas County v. City of St. Petersburg, 116 Fla. 582, 156 So. 523. See Crane Co. v. Bradford Builders, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 116 So. 2d 794. The order appealed should be and is hereby affirmed. Affirmed. PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ-, concur.…
-
State v. Cnty. of Pinellas, 119 Fla. 539 (Fla. 1935)…d been granted from which the respondents, then defendants, took an appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida; that the Supreme Court of Florida, on the 21st day of September, 1934, affirmed (See Pinellas County v. City of St. Petersburg, 116 Fla. 582, 156 Sou. Rep. 523) the grant of such injunction and had therein clearly stated that the City of St. Petersburg was entitled to have said fund paid over to it. It was further alleged in such petition that notwithstanding such decision by the Supreme Court, that the C…
-
Dade Cnty. v. Palgar Home Builders, Inc., 158 Fla. 50 (Fla. 1946)…e authority of State v. Wilson, 157 Fla. 342, 25 So. (2nd) 860; Ready v. Safe Way Rock Company, 157 Fla. 27, 24 So. (2nd) 808; Realty Bond & Share Co. v. Engle, 104 Fla. 329, 143 So. 152, headnote 3, and County of Pinellas v. City of St. Petersburg, 116 Fla. 582, 156 So.523 headnote 3. Affirmed. CHAPMAN, C. J., BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Realty Bond & Share Co. v. Englar, 104 Fla. 329 (Fla. 1932)
- Houston v. McKinney, 54 Fla. 600 (Fla. 1907)
- The Cnty. of Hillsborough v. The State of Fla. ex rel, 57 Fla. 50 (Fla. 1909)