LEWIS F. BEERS, ET AL.,
v.
A. V. M. JOHNSON, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of motions to dismiss a lawsuit to enforce a municipal street improvement lien. The court held that the certificate holder had the right to enforce the lien and that the municipality and former property owners were proper parties.
No, the trial court did not err in denying the motions to dismiss. The statutes permit the transfer of such certificates, and the certificate holder has the right to enforce the lien.
“The statutes under which the certificate was issued, Section 3016 (1906) et seq. C. G L., contemplates a transfer of such a certificate by the municipality; and applicable special Acts are not inconsistent therewith.”
This quote establishes the legal basis for the transferability of the certificate of indebtedness.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA private holder of a municipal certificate of indebtedness for street improvements sued to enforce the lien. The suit named the current property owne…
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 Lien Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
The private holder of a certificate of indebtedness issued by a municipality constituting a lien against deácribed lands for abutting street improvements, brought suit to enforce the lien of the certificate making the owners of the property and their immediate warranty deed grantors and the present municipality parties defendant. Motions to dismiss the bill of complaint were denied and the present owners of the property and the city appealed.
The statutes under which the certificate was issued, Section 3016 (1906) et seq. C. G L., contemplates a transfer of such a certificate by the municipality; and applicable special Acts are not inconsistent therewith. As the city and the former owners of the property who conveyed by warranty deed were not improper parties and the bearer of the certificate had a right to enforce the lien, it was not error to deny the motions to dismiss the bill.
In Marshall v. Young Construction Co., 94 Fla. 11, 113 So. 565, 55 A. L. R. 667, the controlling local statute did not authorize the city to transfer the certificate there involved. See later cases of Buffum v. Stokes, 101 Fla. 984, 133 So. 75. See also Cochrane v. Town of Boca Raton, 112 Fla. 177, 150 So. 611.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Brown, J,, dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City of Sarasota v. Johnson, 123 Fla. 501 (Fla. 1936)…eview judgment in favor of the defendant in error in a suit to enforce payment for certain municipal improvement certificates a part of the same series of certificates another part of which we had under consideration in the case of Bears v. Johnson, 117 Fla. 593, 158 Sou. 41. It was there held that these certificates were issued under Sec. 1906, et seq., R. G. S., 3016, et seq., C. G. L. We held that the certificates could be transferred by the City and that the bearer of such certificates could enforce pay…
Authorities Cited
- Marshall v. C. S. Young Constr. Co., 94 Fla. 11 (Fla. 1927)
- Cochrane v. Town of Boca Raton, 112 Fla. 177 (Fla. 1933)
- Buffum v. Stokes, 133 So. 75 (Fla. 1931)
- Ceraolo v. Myron A. Smith, 112 Fla. 399 (Fla. 1933)