THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND PROPERTY OWNERS, TAXPAYERS, AND CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF BROOKSVILLE, AND OTHERS HAVING OR CLAIMING ANY RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST IN PROPERTY TO BE AFFECTED BY THE ISSUE OF $316,490.31 REFUNDING BONDS OF CITY OF BROOKSVILLE,
v.
CITY OF BROOKSVILLE IN HERNANDO COUNTY, FLORIDA, A BODY POLITIC AND CORPORATE, THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKSVILLE, HERNANDO COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND S. R. COLLINS, W. P. MURPHY AND J. C. BACON, AS AND CONSTITUTING THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKSVILLE, HERNANDO COUNTY, FLORIDA
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 a lower court's decree validating a refunding bond issue for the City of Brooksville. The court addressed the appellant's argument that past-due interest could not be included in refunding bonds, citing a prior ruling that settled this issue.
Yes, past-due and unpaid interest can be included in refunding bonds.
“Among other things, the appellant strenuously argues that the obligation for past-due and unpaid interest cannot be included in the refunding bonds.”
This quote identifies the main legal argument presented by the appellant.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Brooksville sought to issue refunding bonds totaling $316,490.31. These bonds were intended to refund an existing issue of $224,200.00 in …
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.
On appeal we review decree of the Circuit Court validating the refunding ■ bond issue of the City of Brooksville, Florida, to be dated July 1, 1941 in the sum of $316,490.31.
The record shows that these bonds were to refund an outstanding issue of $224,200.00 principal, and $92,290.31 interest.
Among other things, the appellant strenously argues that the obligation for past-due and unpaid interest cannot be included in the refunding bonds. This question was set at rest most recently by our opinion in the case of State of Florida v. Special Road and' Bridge District No. 3 of Palm Beach County, Fla., et al., filed October 6, 1942 and not yet reported.
Other questions stated have been considered and are found to be without merit.
The decree is affirmed.
BROWN, C. J., WHITFIELD, BUFORD, and ADAMS, JJ., concur.