The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1892-04-09

|
Judgment reversed.
N. W q w. M. Davis, for plaintiff in
ersOr; William B. Lamar, attorney-ge
era', for the state.
G. Watr;na 1vln' a1, ct al Appellants, + VS.. g.
MABRY, j.:
l. AN appeal in chancery proceedings
can oe taken from final decree rendered
| upon decree pro confesso, and upon such
appeal the legality of all proceedings
prior TO the default is open for review,
ana the appellant can take advantage of
any reversible error apparent upon such
proceedings.
q. Ihe proceedings in chancery cause
a1ter decree pro con.fesso regularly en-
Gereo are &c parte, and the party in de-
iau't Will not be entitled 10 notice of
them; but while such proceedings are er
pare, the final decree in the cause must
w proper and consequent upon the case
made in the bill.
| g. The separate statutory property of
married woman can be charged in equity
with demand for work done and mate
ilal furnished on said property, whether
IN pursuance of her personal engagement,
or on The CONTRACT Of her husband who
acts as her agent, with her knowledge or
approval.
| 4. A purchase made by a stranger to
the record in chancery proceeding who
has advanced his money at a public sale
under a decree rendered by court of
competent jurisdiction, and who has ac-
cepted deed upon confirmation of the
sale, can not be avoided by a subsequent
reversal Of the decree for error, unless
the decree be void.
5. w. filed bill in chancery against
Mrs. G. and husband to subject the sep
arate statutory real estate OF the wife to
the payment of demand for work and
material furnished at the instance of the
wife on her said property, and also for
the payment of certain costs incurred in
a suit at law; after decree pro c0nfess0
a final decree was entered ordering the
sale Of the wife's said property to pay
the demand for work and material, and
also said costs the wife's property was
sold under this decree, and w., a stranger
to the record, bought it at a public sale
made by a commissioner; the purchase
money was paid, the sale confirmed and
a deed delivered to the purchaser before
appeal taken Held, Without deciding
whether or not the. was error in not SO.
questering the rerts and profits of the
wife's separate est. '"~-"-1 of decree.
ing sale of the CO -, onat the court
had jurisdiction, both of the subject
matter and Of the parties, and that the
sale Of the property under the decree
rendered before appeal taken, passed the
title to the purchaser, and that it could
not be affected even if the decree be re-
versed: Held, further, That the item o
costs was not proper allowance against
the wife's property, and the decree should
be modified to this extent
Decree affirmed.
E. z. Fos:er, for appellants; A. NJ
Thrasher, Tor appellee.
The Town Of Enterprise, T. B. Biddulpl
ct al, Plaintiffs in Error, vs.. The Stat'
of Florida ex REL Attorney-General
Defendant in Error-Volusia county.
MABRY, j.:
/. Jurisdiction of informations in th,
nature Of quo WarrGnto is conferred or
circuit courts by Section II, Art. V, consti
tuition of 1885.
Q. Where usurpation Of public office
or a franchise, is claimed by the state, ane
an information in the nature of a qu
test the right to hold such Office, or enioy
such franchise, it is only necessary t
allege, generally, that the person holdin,
the Office, or enjoying the franchise, does 81
without lawful authority, and in such case
as against the state, it devolves upon such
person TO show a complete legal right I,
enjoy the privileges in question but if th
information states the facts upon which
the charge of usurpation is based, an,
those facts show clear legal right in re-
spondent, it will be insufficient.
3. The qualified inhabitants Of a hamlet
village or town in this state can not unde
the general acts for the incorporation o
cities and towns organize and MAINTAIN
. two municipal governments in the SAM
space at the same time.
4. Under such incOrpating acts it is essen
tial that q municipal corporation hav
ascertained and we'll defined boundaries
and where the metes and bounds of such
corporation utterly fail to enclose any area
and are 80 uncert lin as 10 make ii impossi
BILE 10 determine the territory of sucl
corporation, an organization and municipa
government hereunder will be nullity.
5. The inhabitants of hamlet, villag
or town, recognized as q community O
{ persons authorized to form municipa
, government under the general act for th
incorporation Of cities and towns, in forc
in this state. include persons living on con
. tiguous territory, and where an attempt
made to incorporate two distinct detache,
tracts Of land as corporate territory unde
one government, 1t 10 unauthorized an
void.
Il g. The rule is we'll settled that n
. collateral attack can be made upon the OK
istence of corporation; such bodies de
rive their being from the sovereign will O
the people, and 60 long as the state doe
not question their existence, It can not b
controYerted in collateral way on accoun
OF irregularities and defects in their organi
zation.
z. In March, 1884, an attempt was mad
TO incorporate the town of Enterprise, an,
transcript OF the proceedings was pre-
pared and delivered to the clerk of tn
circuit court for record. The territory o
the proposed incorporation. as appears b.
the record, consists of two detached ant
disconnected tracts of land distant from