STATE, EX REL. CHARLES E. HARRINGTON, ET AL., AS TRUSTEES OF BROWARD COUNTY BOND OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, AN INCORPORATED, VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION,
v.
CITY OF POMPANO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CREATED BY AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS 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.
Bond owners sought mandamus to compel the City of Pompano to levy taxes on property to pay defaulted municipal bonds. The Florida Supreme Court determined that the petition stated a prima facie case for mandamus and overruled the city's motion to quash, requiring the city to file an answer on the merits.
The Court held that the petition stated a prima facie case for mandamus and overruled the city's motion to quash. The case should proceed to the merits with the city required to file an answer or return to the alternative writ within fifteen days.
“It is academic that the motion to quash or dismiss the alternative writ of mandamus admits as true the facts well pleaded and appearing in the alternative writ of mandamus for the pur [*832] pose of testing its sufficiency.”
Establishes the legal standard for evaluating a motion to quash: all well-pleaded facts must be accepted as true.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioners owned municipal bonds issued by Pompano in 1926-1927, each valued at $1,000, which were long overdue and unpaid. The Town of Pompano w…
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 Quo Warranto cases and more on FLexlaw
It has been made to appear by petition for an alternative writ of mandamus in this Court that plaintiffs were the owners of certain described bonds in the sum of $1,000.00 each, dated May 1, 1926, which were delivered on or about June 25, 1927, and that a number of *831said bonds with interest coupons attached are long past due and unpaid. It was further made to appear that the Town of Pompano was established by an Act of the Legislature of 1913, Chapter 6754, and the incorporated area contained some 1,530 acres. On May 27th and December 3rd, 1925, by ordinances lawfully approved and adopted, the Town of Pompano annexed or attempted to annex additional territory. Chapter 13324, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1927, effective May 11, 1927, abolished the Town of Pompano and created and established the City of Pompano. On May 12, 1930, a quo warranto proceeding was filed, and on January 23, 1934, a final judgment was rendered ousting from the city limits thereof all lands except those embraced in the original charter of 1913.
The prayer of the petition seeks an order requiring the levy of a tax on all the property described in Chapter 13324, Acts of 1927, for the payment of petitioners’ bonds and interest thereon.
The City of Pompano filed a motion to quash the alternative writ on some thirty or more grounds and simultaneously filed a motion to strike described portions of the alternative writ of mandamus, which will not be considered on this hearing. The grounds of the motion to quash are: (a) relators do not show a right to the relief sought; (b) the respondent has not violated any duty imposed by law; (c) no clear right exists for the relief sought; (d) the petition fails to make out a prima facie case; (e) respondent cannot be required to do all that is required; (f) the writ asks to perform duties not required by law. A number of other grounds of the motion to quash exist, but the said motion can be disposed of on the grounds supra. It is academic that the motion to quash or dismiss the alternative writ of mandamus admits as true the facts well pleaded and appearing in the alternative writ of mandamus for the pur*832pose of testing its sufficiency. See State, ex rel. Peacock, v. Latham, 125 Fla. 69, 169 So. 597.
Where the alternative writ makes a prima facie case a motion to quash should be denied and the respondents re-1 quired to file their answer or return to the alternative writ. See State, ex rel. Baldwin, v. Brockett, 95 Fla. 937, 117 So. 107; State, ex rel. Burr, v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 71 Fla. 295, 71 So. 474; State, ex rel. Burr, v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 59 Fla. 612, 52 So. 4.
From the pleadings it has been made to appear that a prima facie case has been made or established and that the said motion to quash should be and is hereby overruled and denied. The respondent is required to file an answer or return to the alternative writ of mandamus previously issued in this cause within fifteen days from date hereof and the relators are allowed ten days thereafter to file such a reply pleading as advised. If counsel for the parties desire, the briefs now on file in this cause can, by the Court, be considered in deciding this cause on its merits without the filing of additional briefs.
It is so ordered.
Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. City of Pompano, 136 Fla. 730 (Fla. 1938)…485. The writ requires the tax to be sufficient to pay relator’s matured bonds and the inter [*782] est coupons thereon, or to show cause, etc. A motion to quash the alternative writ was denied. State, ex rel. Harrington, et al., v. City of Pompano, 132 Fla. 830, 182 So. 290. A return or answer to the writ was filed by the city, which, considered with the alternative writ and the record in the quo warranto case made a part of the return by reference, indicates that organic property rights of landowners in t…
-
City OF W. Palm Beach v. Knuutila, 183 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)…City is also aggrieved at the trial court’s refusal to give them an opportunity to file their answer or return to the alternative writ and be heard after the [*883] court denied its motion to quash. State ex rel. Harrington v. City of Pompano, 1938, 132 Fla. 830, 182 So. 290. We decline to rule upon this proposal, having said that the alternative writ did not state a cause of action. We do, however, observe that the normal procedure is to permit respondents such opportunity unless the trial court can say th…
-
State ex rel. George B. McCants v. City of W. Palm Beach, 147 Fla. 351 (Fla. 1941)…mandamus, the allegations of the said alternative writ are admitted to be true for the purpose of testing the legal sufficiency, if not contradicted and denied by the respondents. See State ex rel. Harrington v. City of Pompano, 132 Fla. [*358] 820, 182 So. 290; State ex rel. Peacock v. Latham, 125 Fla. 69, 169 So. 597; State ex rel. Waldron v. Wilkinson, 117 Fla. 463, 158 So. 703; State ex rel. Perkins v. Lee, 142 Fla. 154, 194 So. 315. It is contended that the relator was not an employee of said city or…
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
- The State of Fla. ex rel. R. Hudson Burr v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 71 Fla. 295 (Fla. 1916)
- State v. Latham, 125 Fla. 69 (Fla. 1936)
- Inter-County Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Bozarth, 95 Fla. 939 (Fla. 1928)
- The State of Fla. at the Relation of R. Hudson Burr v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 59 Fla. 612 (Fla. 1910)
- State v. Brockett, 95 Fla. 937 (Fla. 1928)