*1 аnswer further if respondent, plead and return of the or to desired.
It is so ordered. Terrell, Brown, C. J., .Buford Chapman,' J. Henderson, L. Leon v. Town of Municipal Corporation. 8, 1938.
Opinion Filed January 23, 1938. Denied Rehearing February Petition Denied Leave to File for Extraordinary April Edwin Webster, Brobston and Benj. H. Appellants; for Ives & Kinsey, Appellee.
Buford, The appealfrom mo orders dismissing tions to dismiss bill of complaint and to strike certain'para graphs bill. suit purрose require 'accounting determination
judicial of the amount of the due *2 The bill service. respondents levies for debt satisfy tax levies been made in effect that had alleged stated of 12990, Chapter with of provisions accordance legis- before that 7'hat certain were made levies so invalid, of other lative Act was while cеrtain adjudged adjudi- such the date of involved levies were made been'created had cation. That indebtedness certain bonded indebted- other and that provisions under the of that Act operated had ness had accrued the municipality while obtained the Act. That had been judgments municipality incurred on оbligations 12990, of provisions while operating and that unpaid outstanding judgments of issued mandamus had been out writ of рeremptory District Florida of the Southern District Court U. S. with which complainant to collect taxes requiring obligations certain with which to meet provide funds that Act. it operated created while the municipality are: dismiss of motions T'wo grounds its face “2. complaint shows the bill Court ousted has Supreme decree оf the described Placid from complaint. said bill-of upon authority is brought
“3. That proceeding this Florida, aр- Special Laws unconstitutional, Act which said proved June of law process of the due void violаtion being null Constitutions, which. the State and Government provisions of Court of Florida Supreme so has been dеclared be unconstitutional.” Landis, Town of Lake ex rel.
See 839, from should be affirmed on author- appealed The orders Court in case this ity Hill, 3rd, of The State of Florida v. filed Holly June there cases cited. It is ordered.
Affirmed. J., Chapman, Terrell J., C. Brown, dissent. pre Curiam. has been An extraordinary
Per sented, will not is granted. be filed leave unless in effect suggested:
(1) the Court the fact that That failed to consider ter'18643, referendum approved August on 17, 1937, validate failed or confirm taxes levied to the prior passage Acts of but 1937; the аdoption of and failed consider the that after of ouster in fact the judgment quo warranto general special there existed law either or no au- the either thorizing levy appellant, taxes ouster; prior to or the subsequent judgment and such taxes were to be attempted levied collected IX, violation of Sections 3 Constitution. and Article (2) the and the city plaintiff were parties to the quo proceedings, warranto plaintiff’s lands were de- scribed the proceedings and a judgment awarded the lands, аs to the making judgment the res adjudicates city. as to the That in
(3) denying the for rehearing opin- the ion judgment Inc., in thе case of Ocean Beach Heights, Co.,-filed Inv. Brown-Cummer the Supreme by Court of 17, 1938, the United States January wаs overlooked. The referred not to has been overlooked. here, not shown applicаble words. by its In the Ocean case, Beach Heights or of North case, Miami the Bay, of Biscayne side on west in a community electors Shores, Miami town called incorporated a in Dade County, boundariеs of attempted The North Miami. now called Biscayne side of Bay on town included area east inсluded west side area on non-contiguous the general authority had no The electors non-contiguous town limits statutes to include con- Bay. expressly area was statute east There no east over thе area of the town on jurisdiction ferring 220, 57 So. 63 Fla. See Lane v. Bay. side west of established over the arеa 662. The town was side the east it never had de over Bay, jure authority' jurisdiction no jure There have been could Bay. over statute electors by the town established be no could Bay, so there east side оf the area that area. de facto In conferred attempted this case the charter tо be nega- ouster statute. warranto quo Placid, but tives de of the Town of it from jurisdiction resulting did not affect thе de facto taken from action jurisdiction, and attempted statutory thereunder levying by issuing the validation аttempted statutory authority tax- the citizens and to which all by judicial decrees *4 statute, the de- partiеs town payers of the were use- afford Later statutes crees adjudicata. may being res of bondhоlders. rights in enforcing ful instrumentalities petition, the enactment disposes This no controlling 18643 and can have ters effect Town of the bondholders rights ac- pay have the levied and collected to issued, town law under were to the cording they the. presumably under its power premises having facto charter, ouster judg- notwithstanding statutory valid ment the assumed de void, presumably were issued under they since 11586, Acts pursuant statutory authоrity,
valid of 1925. West validated. v. They duly involved, City For a discussion of the see principles Klemm, Winter Plaven v. term. at this denied. rehearing extraordinary petition Leave to file J.,C. Terrell, Buford Ci-iapman, F. Tonnelier, Alice Tonnelier
Charles
r
Henry Tonnelie