Gerard v. State, Ex Rel., (1933)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 14
Judges: PER CURIAM. —
Attorneys: Maxwell Cobbey and Gordon C. Huie and Robert T. Dewell, for Plaintiff in Error;
George B. Carter and Fred S. Scott, for Defendant in Error.
Filed: May 24, 1933
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: The defendant in error was Relator in the Court below and he procured alternative writ of mandamus commanding the plaintiff in error to show cause why certain funds when held by the respondents should not be delivered to him in payment of the principal sum of three defaulted bonds of a series of street improvement bonds. It was alleged that there was enough mony in the street improvement bond fund with which to pay these bonds. The respondents made return in effect alleging that there was suffic
Summary: The defendant in error was Relator in the Court below and he procured alternative writ of mandamus commanding the plaintiff in error to show cause why certain funds when held by the respondents should not be delivered to him in payment of the principal sum of three defaulted bonds of a series of street improvement bonds. It was alleged that there was enough mony in the street improvement bond fund with which to pay these bonds. The respondents made return in effect alleging that there was suffici..
More
I am inclined to think the special fund derived from the special assessments on abutting
property, presumably according to benefits conferred, constitute a trust fund which should be divided among the bondholders equally — giving each his pro rata share, and that the courts should not compel the town to grant any particular bondholders a preference out of this fund — a limited fund — not one derived from ad valorem taxes raised by the partial exercise of a theoretically "unlimited power to tax."
ELLIS, J. concurs.
Source: CourtListener
