STATE, EX REL. FLORIDA NATIONAL BANK, AT ST. PETERSBURG,
v.
DAVID SHOLTZ, GOVERNOR, J. M. LEE, STATE COMPTROLLER, W. V. KNOTT, TREASURER, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 Supreme Court upheld a mandamus writ against the State Board of Administration seeking to compel sequestration of state ad valorem tax moneys to pay defaulted bond interest coupons. The court held that county commissioners may be properly joined as parties respondent in such mandamus proceedings because the writ operates as an execution against county funds.
County commissioners are properly joined as parties respondent in mandamus proceedings seeking to reach county ad valorem tax funds because the writ operates as an execution against county funds, and the county commissioners, as official representatives of the obligor county, must be given an opportunity to present defenses and make the writ completely effective against the county as the obligor.
“the County Commissioners of the obligor county are properly joined as parties respondent to the writ of mandamus”
Establishes the court's holding on proper parties to mandamus proceedings in this context
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA state board of administration held ad valorem tax moneys designated under Chapter 14486, Acts 1929, for the specific purpose of paying defaulted int…
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 Peremptory Writ cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause having been argued upon respondents’ motion to quash the alternative writ of manda-mus, and the Court being of the.opinion that the alternative writ is good in substance, it is ordered that the respondents’ motion to quash be and the same is hereby overruled and respondents allowed ten days within which to file their return, in default, of which the Clerk is directed to enter judgment for a peremptory writ of mandamus in the premises.
In a mandamus suit brought against the State Board of Administration to sequester moneys raised to pay defaulted interest coupons by having same paid over to relator out of ad valorem tax moneys remitted to and coming into possession of the State Board of Administration under Chapter 14486, Acts 1929, for that specific purpose, the County Commissioners of the obligor county are properly joined as parties respondent to the writ of mandamus. This is so because the writ of mandamus in such cases operates as an execution against the county funds represented by the ad valorem taxes sought to be reached and applied in satisfaction of the commands of the writ, and the County Commissioners, as the official representatives of the obligor county or road district which issued the bonds whose interest coupons have gone into default, are therefore properly joined as parties respondent in order to give the county, as the obligor on the coupons, an opportunity to present defenses, if any the county has thereto, as well as to make the writ of mandamus completely effective against the county as the obligor on the coupons thus sought to be satisfied in that manner.
Motion to quash alternative writ denied with leave to file further pleading by way of return.
*788Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown, Buford, and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sholtz v. Knott, 121 Fla. 138 (Fla. 1935)…nty. Amos v. Mathews, 99 Fla. 1, Carlton v. Mathews, 103 Fla. 301, 379; 137 So. 815; Gillespie v. Carlton, 103 Fla. 810, 138 So. 812. The reason is even stronger where as here county ad valorem tax moneys are involved. See Fla. Nat’l Bank v. Sholtz, 160 So. 196. I doubt the applicability of the first come, first served, rule in cases of this kind.…