Case Name: The BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF HENDRY COUNTY, Florida, a body corporate, and Floyd T. Christian, Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of Florida, Appellants, v. STATE ex rel. Joe A. HILLIARD, Appellee
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1966-11-09
Citations: 191 So. 2d 561
Docket Number: No. 35156
Parties: The BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF HENDRY COUNTY, Florida, a body corporate, and Floyd T. Christian, Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of Florida, Appellants, v. STATE ex rel. Joe A. HILLIARD, Appellee.
Judges: THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 191
Pages: 561–562

Head Matter:
The BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF HENDRY COUNTY, Florida, a body corporate, and Floyd T. Christian, Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of Florida, Appellants, v. STATE ex rel. Joe A. HILLIARD, Appellee.
No. 35156.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Nov. 9, 1966.
Boswell & Boswell, Bartow, Earl Fair-cloth, Atty. Gen., Fred M. Burns and Sam G. Harrison, Jr., Asst. Attys, Gen., for appellants.
Julian D. Clarkson, of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, Fort Meyers, for appel-lee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This appeal brings for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, sustaining Section 193.03, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. against a contention that it is in conflict with Section 10 of Article XII of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A.
The District Court initially passed upon the validity of a State statute and accordingly we have jurisdiction under Section 4(2), Article V, Constitution of Florida. The history, background, questions presented and disposition clearly appear in the opinion of the District Court filed January 28, 1966, appearing at 188 So.2d 337, and it would serve no useful purpose to repeat them here.
The propriety of the decision of the lower court and the District Court of Appeal withholding for the present the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus on the ground that the issuance of such at this time "would also create a chaotic condition in the Tax Assessor and Tax Collector's offices as well as wreak havoc in the entire operation of Hendry County," was neither assigned as error, briefed, nor argued, and therefore is not reviewed here. In all other respects the opinion of the District Court is adopted as the opinion of this court and the judgment here under review is
Affirmed.
THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW, O'CONNELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.