Morris v. City of Gainesville

Citations

• 60 Fla. 338

Syllabus

<p>1. Where a statute authorizes a lien for sidewalk improvements “per front foot,” and the bill of complaint to enforce the bill alleges an indebtedness “per front foot,” and the attached statement of the indebtedness is for a stated number of “square feet of sidewalk” and shows “179 feet frontage,” there is in this no variance or want of equity.</p> <p>2. The number of a bill pending in the legislature is no part of the act, but it is a method of convenient handling of bills in legislative procedure.</p> <p>3. Where it clearly appears from consecutive entries in a legislative journal that the number of a bill put upon its passage is mistakenly given and the identity of the bill passed is made certain, the error in the number is not fatal to the act.</p> <p>4. Where there is a substantial compliance with lawful requirements in the construction of sidewalks and street improvements by a municipality and it is not made to appear that the improvements as made are unsuited to the purposes designed, or that such improvements are of no practical value, g lien under the statute on the adjacent property for such improvements may be enforced for the real value thereof under a lawful contract.</p> <p>5. Where there is evidence from which the court could have fairly found a substantial compliance with lawful requirements in making sidewalk improvements, such finding will not be disturbed on appeal, no abuse of discretion being shown.</p> <p>6. Where attorney fees allowed under a statute are apparently excessive for services in the trial court, yet where the defendant appeals and the trial court may have fixed the fees with reference also to services in the appellate court, the amount allowed will not be disturbed if not excessive for services in both courts.</p>