County of Hillsborough v. State ex rel. City of St. Petersburg

Citations

• 57 Fla. 50

Syllabus

<p>1. Where it appears from an alternative writ of mandamus that the county commissioners of a county levied and collected a special tax of 3 mills for the year 1906, and 5 mills for 1907, on all the real and personal property in the county subject to taxation for public roads and bridges under and by virtue of the law contained in section 850 of the General Statutes of 1906, an incorporated city in said county can compel said county commissioners by mandamus to draw a warrant on the County Treasurer for the city’s proportion of said tax as provided for in said section; and said alternative writ is not subject to demurrer because it alleges that the county commissioners declined to audit the claim of said city upon the ground they had spent the money when said writ alleges that there is sufficient money in the treasury to pay the claim of the city; nor is said writ subject to demurrer on the theory that it shows affirmatively the claim was not presented within twelve months from the time it became due, when it does not so appear.</p> <p>2. Whether the claim mentioned in this proceeding is embraced in section 78s General Statutes of 1906 providing that every claim against a county shall be presented to the board of county commissioners within one year from the time said claim shall become due, is not decided.</p> <p>3. Under the statutes of this State when special taxes for road and bridge purposes are levied and collected under section 850 General Statutes of 1906, it is the duty of the county commissioners to draw a warrant on the Treasurer of the county for the proportion of said special tax belonging to an incorporated city.</p>