Judges: WHITFIELD, P. J. —
Attorneys: Jennings Watts, for Plaintiff in Error;
Hudson Cason and Rudolph Isom, for Defendants in Error.
Filed: May 29, 1934
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This writ of error was taken to a final judgment dismissing an action in mandamus which sought to require payment to the relator bond holder the money of the Biscayne Drainage District now in the bond fund of the district, the defense being that the bonds were issued under Sections 2785 (1734), et seq., C. G. L., which provide for paying the bonds only with the proceeds of special assessments; and as such special assessments cannot supply sufficient funds to pay all the bonds, the payments shoul
Summary: This writ of error was taken to a final judgment dismissing an action in mandamus which sought to require payment to the relator bond holder the money of the Biscayne Drainage District now in the bond fund of the district, the defense being that the bonds were issued under Sections 2785 (1734), et seq., C. G. L., which provide for paying the bonds only with the proceeds of special assessments; and as such special assessments cannot supply sufficient funds to pay all the bonds, the payments should..
More
I think the language of the bonds: "The full faith, credit and resources of the said Biscayne Drainage District are hereby pledged for the punctual payment of the principal and interest of this bond" means nothing more in contemplation of law than that there has been pledged the full faith, credit and resources of Biscayne Drainage District to the extent limited and found in the particular statutes under which the Biscayne Drainage District was organized, exists and was authorized to issue bonds at all. When the bonds were validated by judicial decree the decree should be interpreted as having intended to give no greater obligation than the statute and the bonds of their face contemplated. No general taxing power has ever been given drainage districts so none could have been pledged or otherwise obligated by operation of law.
The Florida statute, unlike the Washington statute dealt with by the United States Supreme Court in Roberts v. Richland Irr. Dist., 53 Sup. Ct. 519, affirming 13 P.2d 437, does not undertake to obligate each parcel of land in the district jointly, severally and collectively to meet deficiencies resulting from non-payment of assessments imposed on other lands in the same district.
