ROSE O. CHAVOUS
v.
ERMA GOODBREAD, AS CLERK COLLECTOR IN AND FOR THE TOWN OF CROSS CITY, IN DIXIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
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 court held that a special act creating a municipality is void if notice requirements are not met, and equity jurisdiction is proper for such challenges.
Appellant challenged a special act that abolished and recreated a town, alleging insufficient notice. The lower court dismissed the bill in equity.…
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 Equitable Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant filed a bill in equity challenging the validity of Chapter 22241, Special Acts of 1943. The lower court dismissed the bill on motion and appellant appeals.
Chapter 22241 was a special act which abolished and recreated, with certain changes, the Town of Cross City. It is urged that the act was void, among other reasons, because notice was not published as required by Article III, Section 21, Florida Constitution. Appellee, in effect, says that because of Article VIII, Section 8, Florida Constitution, Article III, Section 21 had no application. This is erroneous for in State ex rel. v. Couch, et al., 139 Fla. 353, 190 So. 723, we recognized the application of Section 21 to a municipal corporation. See also State v. City of Miami, 153 Fla. 653, 15 So. (2nd) 481.
The propriety of attack by bill in equity is questioned and our attention has been called to Morin v. City of Stuart, C.C.A., 111 Fed. (2nd) 773, 129 A.L.R. 250.
Precedent in this court exists to authorize equity to entertain jurisdiction where the validity of the charter is brought into question by a party who has a justiciable cause. See City of Sarasota v. Skillen, et al., 130 Fla. 724, 178 So. 837; City of Winter Haven, et al., v. Klemm & Son, 132 Fla. 334, 181 So. 153; Klemm & Son v. City of Winter Haven, et al., 141 Fla. 60, 192 So. 652.
The decree is reversed for further and appropriate proceedings.
Reversed:
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chavous v. Goodbred, 158 Fla. 826 (Fla. 1947)…ADAMS, J.: Upon this appeal we review a decree on final hearing dismissing a bill in equity. Previously we held the bill good. Chavous v. Goodbread, 156 Fla. 599, 23 So. 2d 761. Thereafter an answer was filed and testimony taken and upon final hearing the bill was dismissed. The first question is whether the required notice of local legislation under Article III, Section 21, Florida Constitution and Section…1 / 2
-
Luke v. City OF ST. Petersburg & Morrison Food Servs., Inc., 107 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1958)…tion concerning municipalities but was otherwise substantially similar to the section as it now exists. This Court has recognized that as amended in 1938, Article '3, Section 21, limits the effect of Article 8, Section 8. Chavous v. Goodbread, 1945, 156 Fla. 599, 23 So. 2d 761; State ex rel. Gibbs v. Couch, 1939, 139 Fla. 353, 190 So. 723. See also City of [*4] Hialeah v. Piaffendorf, Fla.1956, 90 So. 2d 596. If the subject Act was within the purview of Article 8, Section 8 there remains no question as to…
Authorities Cited
- The City of Winter Haven v. A. M. Klemm & Son, 132 Fla. 334 (Fla. 1938)
- The City of Sarasota v. Skillin, 130 Fla. 724 (Fla. 1937)
- State v. City OF Miami, 153 Fla. 653 (Fla. 1943)
- State ex rel. George Couper Gibbs v. Couch, 139 Fla. 353 (Fla. 1939)
- Casol Justice v. State, 130 Fla. 777 (Fla. 1937)
- A. M. Klemm & Son v. The City of Winter Haven, 141 Fla. 60 (Fla. 1939)