HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN R. JEFFORDS, ET AL., APPELLEES

Fla. | 1930-02-18
Terrell, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Strum and Bueord, J.J., concur., Brown, J., dissents., Strum, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J.J., concur.
101 Fla. 654 Florida Supreme Court (1930) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the order herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that the constitutional questions raised are determined in the case of Smith Brothers Inc. v. Williams this day filed, and that other equities asserted require a response; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the order appealed from is affirmed. Crosland v. Brickell, 86 Fla. 91, 97 So. 286.

Affirmed.

Terrell, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Strum and Bueord, J.J., concur.

Brown, J., dissents.

On Rehearing.

Opinion filed February 3, 1931.

Per Curiam.

This is a bill of complaint by a property owner seeking the cancellation of certain paving certificates, an injunction against their attempted enforcement, and for other relief. A demurrer thereto was overruled, from which order this appeal was taken.

In this case, Chap. 10145, Acts of 1925, now Sees. 2502-2511, C. G. L. 1927, and Chap. 11208, Acts of 1927, are assailed upon the same grounds considered in Smith Brothers v. Williams, originally reported in 126 So. 367, in which the decree of the lower court holding said statutes, invalid, was reversed. At the. same time the *656order appealed from in this cause was affirmed, notwithstanding the reversal in Smith Brothers v. Williams, because other equities were aserted by the bill of complaint herein which require a response. See 126 So. 373. On rehearing, the decree of the lower court in Smith Brothers v. Williams was affirmed here by an equally divided Court. 131 So. 335.

Thereafter this cause was assigned for re-argument, and upon consideration thereof, the court having inspected the record and the briefs of counsel, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that aside from the constitutional questions presented in Smith Brothers v. Williams, supra, upon which this court is equally divided, there are other equities asserted in this cause which require a response. It is therefore considered, ordered and decreed that the order appealed from herein be affirmed, and the cause remanded for appropriate proceedings. Crosland v. Brickell, 86 Fla. 91, 97 So. 286.

Strum, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J.J., concur.

Other
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

This is a bill of complaint by a property owner seeking the cancellation of certain paving certificates, an injunction against their attempted enforcement, and for other relief. A demurrer thereto was overruled, from which order this appeal was taken.

In this case, Chap. 10145, Acts of 1925, now Sees. 2502-2511, C. G. L. 1927, and Chap. 11208, Acts of 1927, are assailed upon the same grounds considered in Smith Brothers v. Williams, originally reported in 126 So. 367, in which the decree of the lower court holding said statutes, invalid, was reversed. At the. same time the order appealed from in this cause was affirmed, notwithstanding the reversal in Smith Brothers v. Williams, because other equities were aserted by the bill of complaint herein which require a response. See 126 So. 373. On rehearing, the decree of the lower court in Smith Brothers v. Williams was affirmed here by an equally divided Court. 131 So. 335.

Thereafter this cause was assigned for re-argument, and upon consideration thereof, the court having inspected the record and the briefs of counsel, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that aside from the constitutional questions presented in Smith Brothers v. Williams, supra, upon which this court is equally divided, there are other equities asserted in this cause which require a response. It is therefore considered, ordered and decreed that the order appealed from herein be affirmed, and the cause remanded for appropriate proceedings. Crosland v. Brickell, 86 Fla. 91, 97 So. 286.

Strum, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J.J., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Harwell v. Hillsborough Cnty., 111 Fla. 361 (Fla. 1933)
    …und that the certificates were invalid. Plaintiff and Hillsborough County were made parties defendant to the suit. A demurrer to the bill of complaint was overruled and on appeal that decision affirmed by this Court. Hillsborough County v. Jeffords, 101 Fla. 654, 126 Sou. Rep. 373. On May 27, 1929, a final decree in the suit was entered by Judge Robles, of the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, declaring the certificates against the lots owned by complainants to be invalid, canceling them as clouds upon…
  • Hillsborough Cnty. v. DeSear, 120 Fla. 317 (Fla. 1935)
    …y abutting on this road, whether you have the requisite petition to give you jurisdiction or not, or whether you comply with the law or not.” Taking cognizance of our own record, we find that in the case of Jeffords, et al., v. Hillsborough County, 101 Fla. 654, 126 Sou. 373 and 136 Sou. 398, like certificates, issued at the same time that the certificate involved here was issued and under the same conditions under which these certificates were issued, and issued pursuant to a pretended assessment for the…
    1 / 2
  • Scott v. Scott, 158 Fla. 781 (Fla. 1947)
    …it may authorize. — Smith Bros. v. Williams, 126 So. 367, 100 Fla. 642, followed in Smith Bros. Const. Co. v. Hart, 126 So. 373, 101 Fla. 653, aff (1931) 136 So. 399, 101 Fla. 653, [*785] and foil (1930) Hillsborough County v. Jeffords, 126 So. 373, 101 Fla. 654. “Statute may validate previous administrative assessments or other proceedings so far as they do not violate Constitution. — Smith Bros. v. Williams, 126 So. 367, 100 Fla. 642, followed in Smith Bros. Const. Co. v. Hart, 126 So. 373, 101 Fla. 653,…
    1 / 4

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw