THE BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION FOR THE COUNTY OF ESCAMBIA, ET AL.,
v.
STATE
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 dismissal of a petition to validate $420,000 in school bonds for a special tax district, holding that the 1930 constitutional amendment requiring majority participation of qualified freeholder electors applies to special tax school district bond elections, and that failure to achieve such participation renders an election void.
The court held that the 1930 constitutional amendment applies to special tax school district bond elections and requires that a majority of qualified freeholder electors residing in the district participate in the election for it to have any binding effect. Since fewer than a majority participated, the election was void and produced no valid result.
“In August, 1935, a Special Tax School District bond election was held in Special Tax School District No. 1 of Orange County to determine whether or not $46,500.00 in bonds should be authorized by the district for the purpose of acquiring, building, enlarging, furnishing and otherwise improving the school buildings and school grounds within the district. At said election (to which amended Section 6 of Article IX of the Constitution was applicable, as well as Section 17 of Article XII) a majority of the freeholders who were qualified electors residing in the district, did not participate, so the election was abortive of result.”
Establishes that the 1930 amendment applies to special tax school district bond elections and that failure to achieve majority participation renders elections void.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Board of Public Instruction for Escambia County sought to validate $420,000 in bonds for Special Tax School District No. 16, purportedly approved …
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 Bond Validation Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case the Board of Public Instruction of Escambia County filed proceedings to validate an issue of $420,000.00 of bonds in behalf of Special Tax School *20District No. 16 presumed to have been voted at an election held in said Special Tax School District on August 26, 1935.
It was made to appear before the court below that the number of qualified freeholders residing in that Special Tax School District and entitled to vote in that election was 2,800, while only 979 of such qualified freeholders voted in such election; and, thereupon, the Circuit Judge granted motion ■ to dismiss the petition.
From that order appeal was taken.
Appellants in their brief said:
“The sole question for determination by the court on this appeal is whether, since the 1930 amendment of Section 6 of Article IX of the-Constitution, the provisions of Article XII as to the bonds of Special Tax School Districts are modified or remain in full force and effect”
This question has been definitely settled in this jurisdiction by the opinion and judgment in the case of State, ex rel. Maynard H. Evans, et al., as Trustees of Special Tax School District No. 1 of Orange County, v. George A. Barker, Sr., Chairman of the Board of Public Instruction of Orange County, filed November 1, 1935, in which we said:
“In August, 1935, a Special Tax School District bond election was held in Special Tax School District No. 1 of Orange County to determine whether or not $46,500.00 in bonds should be authorized by the district for the purpose of acquiring, building, enlarging, furnishing and otherwise improving the school buildings and school grounds within the district. At said election (to which amended Section 6 of Article IX of the Constitution was applicable, as well as Section 17 of Article XII) a majority of the freeholders who were qualified electors residing in the district, did not participate, so the election was abortive of result.”
*21We are, therefore, committed to the holding that amended Section 6 of Article IX of the Constitution is applicable to Special Tax School District bond elections and that for such an election to determine anything at all a majority of the qualified freeholder electors within the Special Tax School District must participate in the election. If a majority of such qualified freeholders do not participate in the election called, the result is as if no election had been attempted to be held at that time, because by such an attempted election no result either for or against the issuance of the bonds has been obtained.
The order dismissing the petition should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coon v. Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Okaloosa Cnty., 203 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 1967)…sion there reached. For the record it should be noted that Justices Roberts, Drew and Ervin dissented on the authority of State ex rel. Evans v. Barker, 121 Fla. 350, 163 So. 695 (1935), and, Board of Public Instruction for Escambia County v. State, 122 Fla. 19, 164 So. 516 (1935). While a petition for rehearing was pending, the Legislature enacted Chapter 67-1809 (H.B. 3296) which became law on July 10, 1967. On July 19, 1967, we granted rehearing, withdrew our opinion of May 31, 1967, and remanded the w…
-
Special TAX Sch. Dist. No. 1 of Duval Cnty. v. State, 16 Fla. Supp. 110 (Duval Cty. Cir. Ct. 1960)…nstitutional and statutory requirements; and that as a majority of the qualified freeholder electors did not participate, the election is abortive. State v. Barker, 121 Fla. 350, 163 So. 695; Board of Public Instruction for Escambia County v. State, 122 Fla. 19, 164 So. 516; Dixon v. City of Miami, 126 Fla. 249, 170 So. 845. It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed that the petition to validate the $35,000,000 issue of bonds of Special Tax School District No. 1 be, and the same is hereby, denied, a…