Case ID: fla_106/html/0882-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Daniel T. Utley and Matilda J. Utley, joined by her husband Daniel T. Utley, R. J. McCutoheon, Jr., Addie L. Miller, wife of M. P. Miller; W. A. Miller, R. L. Miller and Elizabeth Bell, nee Elizabeth Miller, wife of W. J. Bell, Appellants, vs. City of St. Petersburg, a Municipal Corporation, Appellee.
    
    144 So. 57.
    Opinion filed October 1, 1932.
    Petition for rehearing denied October 25, 1932.
    
      L. T). Martin, for Appellants;
    
      Erie B. Askew, and Carroll R. Runyon, for Appellee.
   Per Curiam.

The appeal in this case is from an order dismissing a Bill of Complaint. The Bill of Complaint sought a decree holding void certain special assessments imposed by the defendant for street improvements, holding the lien claimed by the defendant pursuant to such assessments to be of no effect and to cancel the assessment cerlicates issued pursuant to such assessment.

The assessment was made under authority of chapter 9914 Acts of 1923. The assessments appear to have been in some repects irregular. It is doubtful that Chapter 14392, Acts of 1929, ratified and validated these assessments as that Act might be held not to apply to special improvements but chapter 15511, Acts of 1931, was and is sufficient in its terms to validate and ratify the assessment here complained of. See Lainhart vs. Catts, 73 Fla. 735, 75 Sou. 47; Dover Drainage District vs. Pancoast, 102 Fla. 267, 135 Sou. 518; Martin v. Dade Muck Land Co., 95 Fla. 530, 116 Sou. 449.

In this case the assessment was based on the front foot rule and, therefore, the inequality of assessment complained o'f by reason of complainant’s property being of greater depth than other property has no basis in fact as it would have, had the special assessment been based in area as was the case of Gast Realty & Investment Co. et al. vs. Cheneider Granite Co., 240 U. S. 55, 60 Law Ed. 523.

The decree should be affirmed on authority of the opinion and judgment in the Florida cases above cited. It is sc? ordered.

Affirmed.

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

Ellis and Brown, J.J., dissent.