Opinion

State Ex Rel. Florida National Bank v. Sholtz

  • 118 Fla. 786
  • 160 So. 196
Court
Supreme Court of Florida
Filed
Apr 5, 1935
Status
Published
On the bench
Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown, Buford, Davis
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 52.4%

The opinion

*787

Per Curiam.

This cause having been argued upon respondents’ motion to quash the alternative writ of manda-mus, and the Court being of the.opinion that the alternative writ is good in substance, it is ordered that the respondents’ motion to quash be and the same is hereby overruled and respondents allowed ten days within which to file their return, in default, of which the Clerk is directed to enter judgment for a peremptory writ of mandamus in the premises.

In a mandamus suit brought against the State Board of Administration to sequester moneys raised to pay defaulted interest coupons by having same paid over to relator out of

ad valorem

tax moneys remitted to and coming into possession of the State Board of Administration under Chapter 14486, Acts 1929, for that specific purpose, the County Commissioners of the obligor county are properly joined as parties respondent to the writ of mandamus. This is so because the writ of mandamus in such cases operates as an execution against the county funds represented by the

ad valorem

taxes sought to be reached and applied in satisfaction of the commands of the writ, and the County Commissioners, as the official representatives of the obligor county or road district which issued the bonds whose interest coupons have gone into default, are therefore properly joined as parties respondent in order to give the county, as the obligor on the coupons, an opportunity to present defenses, if any the county has thereto, as well as to make the writ of mandamus completely effective against the county as the obligor on the coupons thus sought to be satisfied in that manner.

Motion to quash alternative writ denied with leave to file further pleading by way of return.

*788

Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown, Buford, and Davis, J. J., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.