Judges: TERRELL, J. —
Attorneys: Vocelle Mitchell, for Plaintiff in Error;
Fee Liddon, for Defendant in Error.
Filed: Jul. 14, 1933
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This writ of error is from an order of the Circuit Court of the Twenty-first Judicial Circuit granting peremptory writ of mandamus directed to plaintiffs in error commanding them to pay the sum evidenced by a certain *Page 430 bond of Indian River Farms Drainage District held by defendant in error, including four interest coupons, said bond and coupons being fully described in the alternative writ. The sole question brought here for adjudication is whether or not the holder of bonds of a drainag
Summary: This writ of error is from an order of the Circuit Court of the Twenty-first Judicial Circuit granting peremptory writ of mandamus directed to plaintiffs in error commanding them to pay the sum evidenced by a certain *Page 430 bond of Indian River Farms Drainage District held by defendant in error, including four interest coupons, said bond and coupons being fully described in the alternative writ. The sole question brought here for adjudication is whether or not the holder of bonds of a drainage..
More
I agree to the conclusion reached, assuming the validity of the general drainage
Act, title VII, Chapter III, Art. I, C. G. L. 1927, particularly Sec. 1453 C. G. L. 1927, which I doubt. I do not regard State, ex rel., Gillespie v. Carlton, 103 Fla. 810, 138 So.2d Rep. 612, as authority for the "first come first served" doctrine as applied to the redemption of bonds issued by any taxing unit having a so-called "inexhaustible taxing power." While the opinion and argument in the Gillespie-Carlton case,supra, is forceful and displays much ingeniousness I think the points discussed were not only not necessary to the decision, but had no relation to it. The experience of the past years was not necessary to prove that "inexhaustible taxing power" is not synonymous with "inexhaustible revenue collecting capacity," the only power with which the bond holder is concerned, assuming the validity of his bonds, and which constitutes the only security for their payment.
