Judges: DAVIS, J.
Attorneys: Peters Kemp, for Plaintiffs in Error.
Batchelor, Rinehart Dyer, for Defendant in Error.
Filed: Nov. 02, 1935
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This was a mandamus proceeding to enforce payment of certain special tax school district bonds issued under date of May 2, 1925, by the Board of Public Instruction of Dade County, Florida, on behalf of Special Tax School District No. 2 of said county. The only defense interposed meriting discussion in this opinion is that presented by the following portion of the school board's return to the alternatve writ of mandamus: "That it is not the duty of these respondents to pay and discharge the alleg
Summary: This was a mandamus proceeding to enforce payment of certain special tax school district bonds issued under date of May 2, 1925, by the Board of Public Instruction of Dade County, Florida, on behalf of Special Tax School District No. 2 of said county. The only defense interposed meriting discussion in this opinion is that presented by the following portion of the school board's return to the alternatve writ of mandamus: "That it is not the duty of these respondents to pay and discharge the allege..
More
I think the question above discussed was properly raised by respondent Board, in spite of the contention of relator that the Board was estopped by the recitals in the bonds. Estoppel cannot supply an absolute lack of power. See State v. Greer, 88 Fla. 249, 102 So. 2d 739; Dixon County v. Field, 111 U.S. 83, 28 Law Ed. 360. But where a public body has lawful authority to issue bonds upon a condition precedent with power to decide whether the condition precedent has been complied with, their recital in the bonds that such condition has been complied with will ordinarily protect a bona fide purchaser for value. Chaffer County Commissioners, etc., v. Potter, 142 U.S. 355, 35 Law. Ed. 1040,12 S.C. 216; Weinberger v. Board of Public Instr., 93 Fla. 470,112 So. 2d 253.
