C. H. TICHENOR
v.
BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, ORANGE COUNTY, ACTING FOR AND IN BEHALF OF SPECIAL TAX SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 OF ORANGE COUNTY, AND MAYNARD EVANS, DR. FRANK D. GRAY AND MRS. L. F. BLANKER AS TRUSTEES OF SPECIAL TAX SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1
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 denied a motion to recall its mandate, reaffirming its prior judgment regarding the validity of bonds issued by a special tax school district. The court found that the resolution authorizing the bonds was sufficient even though it did not explicitly reference a later statute, as that statute supplemented existing powers and was in effect at the time of issuance.
Yes, the resolution was valid. The later act was supplemental and did not repeal existing powers, and it was in effect when the bonds were issued. Therefore, the bonds were validly issued.
“The resolution was ample to contemplate Chapter 15772, Acts of 1931, and the fact that it was not in terms specified is not material.”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning that the explicit mention of a specific statute was not necessary for the resolution to be valid.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees moved to recall the mandate and reconsider a prior judgment concerning bonds issued by a special tax school district. The motion was based o…
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 Statutory Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
Order
This cause coming on to be heard on the motion of appellees to recall the mandate and for further consideration of our opinion and judgment filed herein August 1, 1939, and it being shown by said motion that the basis thereof was that the resolution authorizing the issuance of the bonds referred to recited that they were issued “pursuant to the Constitution and Laws of the State of Florida, including Chapter 11855, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1927” and did not refer to Chapter 15772, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1931, that by reason of such omission and the fact *378that Chapter 11855, Acts of 1927, limited maturities of bonds to twenty-five years, any bond maturing at a later period could not be unconditionally approved.
The resolution was ample to contemplate Chapter 15772, Acts of 1931, and the fact that it was not in terms specified is not material. It applies to special tax school districts and states in terms that it is a supplemental and additional grant of power and should not be construed as a repeal of any existing power for the issuance of bonds unless inconsistent therewith.
Chapter 15772, Acts of 1931, was on the books when the bonds in question were issued. It was not questioned by intervenors or taxpayers, so it was applicable to the bonds in question. This being our view, nothing could be accomplished by recalling the mandate. The motion to recall the mandate is denied.
It is so ordered.
Terrell, C. J., Wi-iitfield, Brown, Buford, Chapman and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State ex rel. W. v. Gray, 74 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1954)…said section 851, Rev.Codes, as amended, fixing said salary.” (Emphasis supplied.) See also annotations in 16 L.R.A.,N.S., 631; 27 L.R.A.,N.S., 537; 49 L.R.A.,N.S., 67; and 164 A.L.R. 928. The cases of State ex rel. Williams v. Lee, 140 Fla. 380, 191 So. 697, and State ex rel. Knott v. Lee, 144 Fla. 164, 197 So. 681, are cited as authority and precedent for the contention that the salary of the Governor, a constitutional officer may be increased in the general appropriation act. We will hereafter refer…1 / 3
-
State ex rel. W. v. Knott v. J. M. Lee, 144 Fla. 164 (Fla. 1940)…y apparent, and no other Act changed the salary. On the basis of these facts, if found to be accurate, it is the duty of the Budget Commission to approve Relator’s salary on the basis of $6,000 per annum. State ex rel. Williams v. Lee, 140 Fla. 380, 191 So. 697. The motion to quash is overruled, the return is insufficient, and the peremptory writ is awarded. It is so ordered. Whitfield and Chapman, J. J., concur. Brown and Thomas, J. J., dissent. Buford, J., disqualified.…1 / 2
-
State ex rel. W. v. Gray, 70 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1954)…115, Acts of 1953 raised the salary of the Governor from $12,000’ to $15,000 per annum. This matter was, in my opinion, settled in the cases of State ex rel. Williams v. Lee, 121 Fla. 815, 164 So. 536, State ex rel. Williams v. S. Lee, 140 Fla. 380, 191 So. 697, and State ex rel. Knott v. Lee, 144 Fla. 164, 197 So. 681. For a period of more than thirteen years, and .seven sessions of the legislature the people' and' the law-makers have [*498] relied upon these ruling's. _ Section 5, Article HI of the ■ Con…1 / 3
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence