Case Name: THE STATE OF FLORIDA and others, v. THE BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND ON BEHALF OF SPECIAL TAX SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 50 OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1947-01-13
Citations: 158 Fla. 412
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE STATE OF FLORIDA and others, v. THE BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND ON BEHALF OF SPECIAL TAX SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 50 OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.
Judges: TERRELL, BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 158
Pages: 412–413

Head Matter:
THE STATE OF FLORIDA and others, v. THE BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND ON BEHALF OF SPECIAL TAX SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 50 OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.
28 So. (2nd) 686
June Term, 1946-
January 13, 1947
Division A
J. Rex Farrior, for appellant.
John M. Allison, for appellee.

Opinion:
CHAPMAN, C. J.:
From a final decree entered by the Circuit Court of Hills-borough County, Florida, validating, approving and confirming the issuance of bonds in the sum of $155,000,000 by the Board of Public Instruction of Hillsborough County, Florida, in behalf of School District No. 50 of said County, an appeal has been perfected here. The first contention made is that the validation proceedings are fatally defective because (a) the resolution as adopted by the Board of Public Instruction calling for a bond election and (b) the notice of the election as published each fail to disclose the maturities of the proposed bond issue. That the validation proceedings are fatally defective in that it violates the provision of Section 17 of Article 12 of the Constitution viz: "Each annual installment shall not be less than 3% of the total amount of the issue."
It clearly appears by the record that a majority of the freeholders of the School District No. 50 of Hillsborough County, Florida, approved at the election the issuance of the bond issue. The Chancellor below in the validation decree expressed the view that the amounts and date of payment of periodical installments of the bonds were surplusage and legal information wholly unnecessary. We have examined the several contentions made by counsel for the appellants for a reversal of the validation decree and hold that the same are without merit.
Affirmed.
TERRELL, BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur.