STATE OF FLORIDA, BY J. TOM WATSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.,
v.
R. V. COVINGTON, A. W. INGLIS, AND W. D. BRINSON, AS PURPORTED SUPERVISORS OF BALDWIN DRAINAGE DISTRICT, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court denied a writ of quo warranto challenging the existence of the Baldwin Drainage District, finding it had a de facto existence with acquired rights. The court also noted that even if individual landowners had grounds for relief regarding unbenefited lands, the allegations were insufficient.
No, a writ of quo warranto will not be issued to challenge the existence of the district due to its de facto existence and acquired rights. Furthermore, the allegations regarding individual landowners' claims of unbenefited lands are insufficient for relief, even if quo warranto were appropriate.
“It appears that the Baldwin Drainage District was attempted to be established under the statutes and has for many years been operating and recognized by the statutes as having at least a de facto existence with jurisdiction and powers, pursuant to which contractual and other rights have been acquired and not fully discharged; therefore a writ in quo warranto challenging the existence of the district and the authority of its officers will not now be issued.”
This quote establishes the primary reason for denying the writ of quo warranto, emphasizing the district's de facto existence and acquired rights.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State of Florida, through its Attorney General, sought a writ of quo warranto to challenge the legal existence of the Baldwin Drainage District an…
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 Acquiescence cases and more on FLexlaw
It appears that the Baldwin Drainage District was attempted to be established under the statutes and has for many years been operating and recognized by the statutes as having at least a de facto existence with jurisdiction and powers, pursuant to which contractual and other rights have been acquired and not fully discharged; therefore a writ in quo warranto challenging the existence of the district and the *43authority of its officers will not now be issued. If individual co-relators are entitled to relief upon the. ground that their lands in the district have not been and cannot be in any way benefited by being included in the drainage district, and taxation of such unbenefitted lands violates organic property rights which have not been lost by acquiescence or otherwise, the allegations of the information are insufficient even if the relief can properly be obtained by quo warranto proceedings.
Writ denied.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Terrell, Chapman, Thomas and Adams, J. J., concur.
Buford, J., disqualified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Millican v. State, 84 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 1956)…ich the taxing power is to be exercised. We have held that officers of a drainage district created by a defective decree possess de facto status which cannot successfully be challenged by a writ in quo-warranto, State by Watson v. Covington, [*714] 148 Fla. 42, 3 So. 2d 521, nor can the organization of the district be attacked collaterally, Baldwin Drainage Dist. v. MacClenny Turpentine Co., 154 Fla. 525, 18 So. 2d 792. One important basis of these holdings was- that contractual and other rights had been…1 / 2
-
Bostwick v. Baldwin Drainage Dist., 152 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1945)…our decision must be rested upon a ground that does not involve the merits of these allegations. Our course here has been charted by the Supreme Court of Florida, and we must follow it. We point to the cases of State by Watson v. Covington et al., 148 Fla. 42, 3 So. 2d 521, and Baldwin Drainage District v. MacClenny Turpentine Co., 154 Fla. 525, 18 So. 2d 792. In the first case this drainage district was held to be at least a de facto corporation and to have the rights and powers of such; and in the seef…1 / 2