Huff v. City of Jacksonville
Supreme Court of Florida
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval county. STATEMENT. "On the 30th of September* 1889, the city of Jacksonville passed an ordinance, the first, second, fifth, sixth and seventh sections of which are as follows: Section 1. The ow-ner or owners of every lot, piece ■or parcel of land within the corporate limits of the city of Jacksonville, which may front on or abut upon any street or lane, whether the same be owned in fee •simple or held under any other title, shall be…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval county. STATEMENT. "On the 30th of September* 1889, the city of Jacksonville passed an ordinance, the first, second, fifth, sixth and seventh sections of which are as follows: Section 1. The ow-ner or owners of every lot, piece ■or parcel of land within the corporate limits of the city of Jacksonville, which may front on or abut upon any street or lane, whether the same be owned in fee •simple or held under any other title, shall be bound •and is hereby required to construct, repair, or otherwise have in thorough repair, within sixty days after the…
1Opinion of the Court
Mabry, J.:
Counsel for appellant makes no contention here that the city of Jacksonville had. no power under its constituent act of 1887, chapter 377ñ laws of Florida, to pass the ordinance of 1889, the one under which the lien is asserted in this case, nor is it insisted here that the ordinance is invalid for any reason. It is admitted in the proof that the city passed the ordinance and duly published it, and the bill was filed in 1891 after the time for the publication of the ordinance had expired. We assume, as counsel has done here, that the ordinance is valid, and after an examination of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Townsend Burns Ridgeway v. ReeseSupreme Court of Florida · 1930
- Milton, Jr. v. City of MariannaSupreme Court of Florida · 1932