STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. H. T. DAVIS AND GEORGE W. YEOMAN,
v.
JUMPER CREEK 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.
A drainage district's supervisors wrongfully accepted past-due bonds at par value and released property owners from their tax obligations. The Florida Supreme Court reversed dismissal of a mandamus action brought by a bondholder seeking to compel additional tax levy, holding that absent property owners need not be made parties to the suit.
Property owners need not be made parties to the mandamus action. The supervisors' acceptance of bonds at par value and release of the tax obligation was contrary to law and void. The supervisors, as legal representatives of all landowners and trustees of district assets, may be ordered to perform their duty without the released property owners being parties to the suit.
“The board of supervisors are the legal representatives of all the land owners in the district. They are also trustees of all assets allocated by law to pay and discharge bond obligations of the district.”
Establishes that supervisors represent all landowners, making it unnecessary to join absent landowners as parties to compel supervisors to perform their statutory duties.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJumper Creek Drainage District was formed under Florida's drainage law, issuing bonds totaling approximately half a million dollars and assessing over…
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 Bondholder Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
From a judgment dismissing an action of mandamus, for want of proper parties respondent, relator appeals.
Jumper Creek Drainage District was formed pursuant to the general drainage law of Florida. The benefits to the land in the district assessed exceeded a million dollars. Bonds totaling nearly a half million were issued. The total tax levied and prorated against the property was nearly a million dollars. The supervisors of the district allowed certain property owners to pay off and discharge the total tax assessed against their property.
Ninety-eight per cent of the payment of this tax was made with outstanding and past due bonds of the district at par and the remainder in cash. Relator is the holder of past due bonds of the district and sought to compel the levy of an additional tax, not in excess of the assessed benefits, on all lands in the district including the lands purportedly released. The circuit judge dismissed the action because the persons holding title to the released lands were not made parties. This ruling presents the only question for us to decide.
The drainage district is a creature of the general statutes (C. 6458 Gen. Laws 1913, C. 298. F.S. 1941) and the management of the district is placed in a board of supervisors. The creative statute is a grant of power and the supervisors of the district must look entirely to the statute for their authority. All persons and their privies dealing with the supervisors are charged with notice of the limitation of authority vested in the officials. Relators’ rights were fixed by law when the bonds were first negotiated. Sec. 41, Chapter 6458, Acts 1913. The action of the supervisors in accepting the bonds and releasing the total tax was contrary to law and of no effect. See First State Bank of Morenci v. Little River Drainage District, 122 Fla. 304, 165 So. 48. The board of supervisors are the legal representatives of all the land owners in the district. They are also trustees of all assets allocated by law to pay and discharge bond obligations of the district. Those assets may be accumulated cash or “tax levied.” If they should take the cash from the till and wrongfully de*453liver it to a third party, surely no one would argue that relator would need make the third party a party respondent to have the' supervisors further discharge their duty. The same is true where they wrongfully dispose of the other form of assets. In fact, there is nothing here that the court might order the absent land owners to do in the way of granting relief. If the absent land owners had paid in cash for the release under the law (Sec. 17 and 41, c. 6458, Acts 1913) he might still be liable not exceeding the total assessed benefit.
The judgment is reversed with directions to proceed further not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
BUFORD, C. J., THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
TERRELL, BROWN, and CHAPMAN, JJ., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jumper Creek Drainage Dist. v. State, 155 Fla. 669 (Fla. 1945)…ADAMS, J.: This appeal is from a judgment for relator notwithstanding respondent’s answer in mandamus. This case has, heretofore, been before us. See State v. Jumper Creek Drainage District, 153 Fla. 451, 14 So. 2nd 900. When our mandate went down, an answer was filed substantially admitting the allegations of the alternative writ and also set up, by way of an affirmative defense, that several years prior to this suit the drainage district was in t…
-
Roach v. Loxahatchee Groves Water Control Dist., 417 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…936). The management of each district is by a board of supervisors. Because the districts are creatures of statute, each board of supervisors must look entirely to the statute for its authority. State ex rel. Davis v. Jumper Creek Drainage District, 153 Fla. 451, 14 So. 2d 900, 901 (1943). The law is well-settled that drainage districts have only those powers which the Legislature has delegated by statute. Forbes Pioneer Boat Line v. Board of Commissioners, 77 Fla. 742, 82 So. 346 (1919) (no power to collec…1 / 2
-
Seaboard AIR Line R.R. Co. v. Sarasota-Fruitville Drainage Dist., 255 F.2d 622 (5th Cir. 1958)…to obligate itself to use tax money in a way not otherwise authorized by making a contract that is beneficial to the taxing unit does not justify the otherwise illegal expenditure of tax funds. State, ex rel. Davis v. Jumper Creek Drainage District, 153 Fla. 451, 14 So. 2d 900; National Bank of Jacksonville v. Duval County, 45 Fla. 496, 34 So. 894; Brumby v. City of Clearwater, 108 Fla. 633, 149 So. 203. We conclude that the indemnity agreement in the contract was void and may not be enforced. The conclus…
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
- First State Sav. Bank of Morenci v. Little River Drainage Dist., 122 Fla. 304 (Fla. 1935)