Judges: PER CURIAM. —
Attorneys: Hudson Cason and Bart A. Riley, for Appellant;
Price, Price Hancock, for Appellee.
Filed: Sep. 17, 1932
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This was an equity suit against the Tax Collector of Dade County to prevent his enforcement by seizure and sale of appellee's property, the license tax provided by Section 6, paragraph (d) of Chapter 14491, Acts of 1929, relating to apartment houses. The paragraph and section of the 1929 Act in question was held to be constitutional, and its meaning construed, in the case of State ex rel. George E. Warren v. Lehman, Sheriff, 100 Fla. 970 , 130 Sou. Rep. 716 . Sections 23 and 24 of Chapter 14491,
Summary: This was an equity suit against the Tax Collector of Dade County to prevent his enforcement by seizure and sale of appellee's property, the license tax provided by Section 6, paragraph (d) of Chapter 14491, Acts of 1929, relating to apartment houses. The paragraph and section of the 1929 Act in question was held to be constitutional, and its meaning construed, in the case of State ex rel. George E. Warren v. Lehman, Sheriff, 100 Fla. 970 , 130 Sou. Rep. 716 . Sections 23 and 24 of Chapter 14491, ..
More
The Court below having held a statute unconstitutional pursuant to which holding it sustained a bill in equity brought to enjoin the collection of a tax authorized by the statute, this Court by its judgment and opinion filed September 17, 1932, reversed the final decree rendered below enjoining the collection of the tax, but gave no direction for dismissal of the bill.
Appeals here in equity cases are under our system but steps in the cause (Palm Beach Estates versus Croker, decided at the present term, and cases cited therein), and when a final decree is reversed without directions to the court below to enter a particular decree or to dismiss the bill, the effect of the reversal is to remand the cause to the court below for further decree in accordance with and not inconsistent with, the ruling of the Supreme Court, with leave to the nisi prius court to take
such other and further proceedings in the cause as may be according to right and justice in arriving at another decree which will accord with the mandate of the appellate court in the premises.
Petition for rehearing denied.
BUFORD, C.J., AND WHITFIELD, TERRELL, BROWN AND DAVIS, J.J., concur.
