Smith v. State, (1936)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 7
Judges: PER CURIAM.
Attorneys: Harrison E. Barringer, for Plaintiffs in Error;
C.L. McKaig, for Defendant in Error.
Filed: Dec. 18, 1936
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Under the writ of error we are asked to review final judgment awarding peremptory writ of mandamus. The only question presented for our determination is as stated by the plaintiff in error, as follows: "Whether it is error for the Court to order alternative and peremptory writs of mandamus requiring the levy of a tax to pay the relator's claim `taking into consideration the usual percentage of taxes paid during the year.'" The question must be determined adversely to the contention of plaintiff
Summary: Under the writ of error we are asked to review final judgment awarding peremptory writ of mandamus. The only question presented for our determination is as stated by the plaintiff in error, as follows: "Whether it is error for the Court to order alternative and peremptory writs of mandamus requiring the levy of a tax to pay the relator's claim `taking into consideration the usual percentage of taxes paid during the year.'" The question must be determined adversely to the contention of plaintiff i..
More
As I see it, the effect of the statutes relating to the City of Sarasota is that in making up the budget they should be governed by the laws applicable to County Commissioners. Hence the principle stated in the Rodes case, above cited, should apply.
Source: CourtListener
