STATE, EX REL. CENTER,
v.
DAVE SHOLTZ, AS GOVERNOR, 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.
A bondholder sought mandamus to compel the State Board of Administration to pay the principal and post-maturity interest on two matured Union County bonds. The Florida Supreme Court held that while the bondholder could recover the principal amount through mandamus, post-maturity interest was not enforceable by mandamus and required a separate judgment at law.
The court held that mandamus would lie to recover the principal amount of the matured bonds from the sinking fund, provided the funds had not been otherwise encumbered or disbursed prior to the proceeding. However, post-maturity interest was not enforceable by mandamus and could only be recovered through a separate judgment at law.
“under the statutes relating to the State Board of Administration and the statutes pertaining to the particular bonds here brought in controversy (Chapters 13471, Acts 1927, 14486, Acts 1929) the sinking fund required to be set aside for payment of the bonds at maturity, not being a closed fund, is applicable to the payment of the matured principal of each several bond, however derived or from whatever source realized”
Establishes that the sinking fund could be used to pay matured bond principal from any available source
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe relator held two $1,000 bonds issued by Union County, Florida, maturing on January 1, 1932. The bonds were issued under Chapter 13471, Acts 1927, …
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 Sinking Fund cases and more on FLexlaw
Relator as the holder of two $1000.00 bonds .issued by Union County, Florida, payable January 1, 1932, brought his amended alternative writ of mandamus to require the State Board of Administration to pay over to .him, as holder of said matured obligations, the principal sum of $2000.00 together with interest thereon after maturity at the contract rate of six per cent.—the interest amounting to $240.00 for the period from January 1, 1932, .until January 1, 1934. The bonds were issued under Chapter 13471, Acts 1927. This proceeding was' brought against the State Board of Administration as respondents because of Chapter 14486, Acts 1929, transferring jurisdiction over the fiscal management of said bonds' from the officials of Union County to said respondents herein.
Under the statutes relating to the State Board of Administration and the statutes pertaining to the particular bonds here brought in controversy (Chapters 13471, Acts 1927, 14486, Acts 1929) the sinking fund required to be set aside for payment of the bonds at maturity, not being a closed fund, is applicable to the payment of the matured principal of each several bond, however derived or from whatever source realized. So relator is entitled to a per- . emptory writ of mandamus to have paid to him the $2000.00 principal due on his bonds, out of any sum that may have been placed to the credit of the sinking fund required to be set aside to pay said bonds at maturity, provided the same has not otherwise become bound by judicial processes prior "in dignity to this one, or disbursed prior to the bringing of this proceeding. State ex rel. Davis v. State Board of Administration, 115 Fla. 806, 156 Sou. Rep. 130.
But interest upon the matured principal of the bonds is not enforceable by mandamus prior to the recovery of a judgment for such interest, the rule on this subject having *766been recently declared in a case decided at the present term. See State, ex rel. Davis, v. Lee, et al. Opinion filed October 1, 1934 (not yet reported).
The applicability of the foregoing rule is not altered by the fact that the bond contract itself, as in this case, specifically provides for liability for interest at the contract rate until the bonds are paid, because the bonds and the statutes under which they were issued contemplate payment at maturity as the enforceable statutory duty owed to be performed by the officers for the benefit of the bondholders.
Payment of interest after maturity is merely a contingent liability that may become enforceable against the obligor for recovery of a judgment at law for such interest, should the bonds default.
The amended alternative writ is quashed with leave to amend the same to conform to the holding of this opinion, respondents to answer thereto as they may be advised within fifteen days after service of a copy of the amendment upon them.
Whitfield, and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Sholtz, 120 Fla. 423 (Fla. 1935)…Court reversed on the authority of the following decisions of this Court in analogous cases: State, ex rel. Florida National Bank, v. State Board of Administration, 115 Fla. 753, 154 Sou. Rep. 876, 156 Sou. Rep. 15; State, ex rel. Center, v. Sholtz, 116 Fla. 764, 156 Sou. 749; (State, ex rel. Suwannee River Bridge Co., v. Sholtz, 119 Fla. 706, 160 Sou. Rep. 872; 119 Fla. 460, 158 Sou. Rep. 812, 114 Fla. 135, 154 Sou. Rep. 871). Reversed. Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis and Buford, J. J., concur.…
-
Sholtz v. State, 121 Fla. 477 (Fla. 1935)…duties required by the writ,” etc. That mandamus will lie to require the Board of Administration to perform a duty like that herein involved is settled in this jurisdiction by the opinions and judgments in State, ex rel. Center, v. Sholtz, et al., 116 Fla. 764, 156 Sou. 746, also see 156 Sou. 747; State, ex rel. Suwannee River Bridge Co., v. Sholtz, et al., 119 Fla. 701, 160 Sou. 872, also 873 and 874; State, ex rel. Andrews, v. Sholtz, et al., 119 Fla. 423, 162 Sou. 865. So the only question open for de…
-
City of DeLand v. State, 120 Fla. 402 (Fla. 1935)…severally become due.” • Therefore, we'must hold, on authority of the cases of State, ex rel. Crane, v. City of Lakeland, 116 Fla. 713, 156 Sou. 699; and State, ex rel. Davis, v. Lee, 116 Fla. 726, Sou. 744; and in State, ex rel. Center, v. Sholtz, 116 Fla. 764, 156 Sou. 746, that both the alternative writ and the peremptory writ of mandamus are too broad in that the respondents are required thereby to pay interest on the bonds after the maturity date thereof. It is next contended that the alternative wri…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. State Bd. of Admin., 115 Fla. 806 (Fla. 1934)