| Fla. | Aug 3, 1936
Lead Opinion
— This is an appeal from a decree dismissing a bill of complaint seeking to enjoin the issue of $330,000.00 of Water Revenue Certificates, Series “B,” by the City of Miami, Florida, without an approving vote of
The Water Revenue Certificates, Series “B,” are to be paid solely from the revenue derived from the operation of the said waterworks system and not otherwise.
The decree dismissing the bill of complaint should be affirmed upon the authority of State, ex rel., v. City of Miami, 113 Fla. 280" court="Fla." date_filed="1933-12-19" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/state-and-diver-v-city-of-miami-3382976?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3382976">113 Fla. 280, 152 So. 6, and other similar cases. See also State, ex rel. Vero Beach, v. MacConnell, No. 1, Boykin v. Town of River Junction, Williams v. Town of Dunnellon, and Bradley v. City of Homestead, decided at this term.
Affirmed.
Lead Opinion
This is an appeal from a decree dismissing a bill of complaint seeking to enjoin the issue of $330,000.00 of Water Revenue Certificates, Series "B," by the City of Miami, Florida, without an approving vote of *145 the freeholder electors of the City, as required by Section 6, Article IX, Constitution, as amended in 1930, the purpose of the issue being for improvements and additions to the existing waterworks system of the City of Miami.
The Water Revenue Certificates, Series "B," are to be paid solely from the revenue derived from the operation of the said waterworks system and not otherwise.
The decree dismissing the bill of complaint should be affirmed upon the authority of State, ex rel., v. City of Miami,
Affirmed.
WHITFIELD, C.J., TERRELL, BROWN, BUFORD and DAVIS, J.J., concur.
ELLIS, P.J., concurs upon the principle announced in his specially concurring opinion in the case of State, ex rel. City of Vero Beach, v. MacConnell, this day filed.
Concurrence Opinion
concurs upon the principle announced in his specially concurring opinion in the case of State, ex rel. City of Vero Beach, v. MacConnell, this day filed.