County Commissioners v. King
Citations
- 13 Fla. 451
Syllabus
<p>1. Where a duty is imperatively required by law to be performed by ministerial officers, as the levying of a specific tax, no demand is necessary to lay the foundation of an application for a writ of mandamus to enforce it.</p> <p>2. The 22d section of the act known as the Internal Improvement Act authorized Boards of County Commissioners to subscribe for stock in railroad companies, and to issue bonds, bearing interest, for the purpose of paying the subscription, and requires the commissioners to levy an annual tax to meet the interest as it becomes due. The county of Columbia, in 1855, subscribed for such stock, and issued its bonds. Simultaneously, the Supreme Court of the State, in a case before it involving the validity of the law, pronounced it constitutional, and the county continued the issuing of its bonds until the whole amount authorized was issued: Held, That upon /application for a writ of mandamus against the commissioners to compel the levy of a tax to pay the interest, by a bona fide holder of coupons representing the interest due upon these bonds, they having been issued under the sanction of the highest judicial author!ly^bf the Slate, and the acquiescence of the people of the county, it is too hito to question the constitutionality of the law and tlie validity of tlie bonds in the hands of a bona fide holder, and that a judgment of the court now, declaring the law unconstitutional, would not affect the bonds heretofore so issued, but would operate only upon the future.</p> <p>3. The compounding of interest is not usmious under the laws of this State, which limited the rate of interest.</p> <p>4. Coupons representing the interest of county bonds were issued by the County Commissioners, signed “ S. L. Niblack,” without an official designation, but it appearing that they were in fact regularly issued: Held, that tlie county was liable upon them.</p> <p>5. Mandamus is the proper, because the only efficient remedy to enforce the collection of taxes
Judges: Rah
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
27 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Meredith v. Winter HavenSupreme Court· 1943-11-08· cited 693×
- State v. Miami Beach Redevelopment AgencySupreme Court of Florida· 1980-12-11· cited 65×
- Fahs v. MartinFifth Circuit· 1955-06-30· cited 57×
- State Ex Rel. Buckwalter v. City of LakelandSupreme Court of Florida· 1933-10-03· cited 55×
- May v. Board of DirectorsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1949-07-22· cited 48×
- Folks v. County of MarionSupreme Court of Florida· 1935-09-26· cited 44×
- State v. O'NeilSupreme Court of Iowa· 1910-05-16· cited 34×
- Aztec Motel, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. FairclothSupreme Court of Florida· 1971-06-30· cited 31×
- Canova v. State ex rel. CommissionersSupreme Court of Florida· 1882-01-15· cited 20×
- Merchants Broom Co. v. ButlerSupreme Court of Florida· 1915-11-19· cited 20×
- General Development Corporation v. CatlinDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1962-04-10· cited 19×
- United States ex rel. Masslich v. SaundersEighth Circuit· 1903-07-07· cited 18×
- Wright v. Board of Public InstructionSupreme Court of Florida· 1950-04-25· cited 16×
- Badger v. City of New OrleansSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1897-04-12· cited 15×
- State ex rel. Moody v. CallSupreme Court of Florida· 1897-01-15· cited 11×
- State ex rel. Harris v. City of Fort PierceSupreme Court of Florida· 1933-08-02· cited 7×
- Meredith v. City of Winter HavenFifth Circuit· 1943-02-03· cited 7×
- Olds v. AlvordSupreme Court of Florida· 1939-06-20· cited 6×
- Bettis v. Tampa Real Estate Exchange & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Florida· 1911-06-15· cited 4×
- Mathews v. ToogoodNebraska Supreme Court· 1888-01-15· cited 4×
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Bank of Columbia v. OkelySupreme Court· 1819-02-22· cited 668×
- McCullough v. Mayor of BrooklynNew York Supreme Court· 1840-05-15· cited 60×
- Cotten v. County CommissionersSupreme Court of Florida· 1856-01-15· cited 56×
- White v. Vermont & Massachusetts RailroadSupreme Court· 1859-03-11· cited 39×
- Inhabitants of Windham v. Inhabitants of PortlandMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1808-05-15· cited 38×
- Williams v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1843-03-13· cited 29×
- Hollingsworth v. DetroitU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Michigan· 1844-10-15· cited 14×
- Pacific Employers Insurance v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court· 1938-01-31· cited 7×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.