Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r ',...,,, . <br /> <br />.....". .~ <br /> <br />-~ <br /> <br />'\-- <.~ <br /> <br />r~~.""." . <br />. \~~. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />IJ <br />* <br /> <br />.~ <br />: <br />.'~ <br />.,\ <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />2~2, 52 C.C.A. 204) United st~tes v. Clark <br />County, 96 U.S. 2U, 24 L. Ed. 628; Hitchcock <br />v. Galveston, gt U.S. 341-349, 24 L. 0d. 659; <br />United states v. Macon County, ~D U.~. 582, <br />25 L. Ed. 331; CHston Waterworks COI pan'y v. <br />City of Creston, 101 Iowa, 678, 70 N.r. 739. <br />"hether or not it may be oompelled to levy a <br />tax to pay for th& same is not now before us, <br />and need not be oonsidered." <br /> <br />l <br /> <br />The cnse of state v. Florida Ke;fs Aqueduot C0l11missio~'1 <br />4 So. 2nd 662 is in point. Florida Keys Aqueduct Cor1mission WES <br />created by the legislature to provide a wRter system for the <br />City of Key Vlest, Florida. 'lhe act o~atin', the commission <br />expressl1 provided "provided) a,.ever, thE1t at no time shall <br />said Board have the power of levying taxes on any person or <br />property, nor shall Bny act of 8ald Commission be deemed to pledge. <br />or involve the faith and credit of the governmental sub-dJ.visions ' <br />which may lie in the distriot of or be served by said Commission.": <br /> <br />The Commission proposed to borrow a large sum of <br />money frorr, Recon structt II Finanoe Corporfl ti on pnd to issue its <br />bonds therefor. The bonds were to be secured by a lien upon <br />the revenue derived from the water system. It also proposed to <br />enter into a lease with the City of Key ~est, covering an <br />incomplete water system already in~talled in the city streets. <br />The validity of the bonds and lease was ,questioned in the case <br />just cited. The Supreme Court held that the bondR nnd lease <br />were valid. <br /> <br /> <br />f'.:.f' <br />4 <br /> <br />'! <br />..Ii <br />1 <br /> <br />~. <br />.... ~ <br />;l <br /> <br />A greet many oase8 have been before our Supreme Courl., <br />which involved the purohAse of utilitieR systems by vnr lous , <br />municipal! ties in which the purohllse price was to be paid solely.\;:,.- <br />from income derived frOM th.e..u.t.i.lity itself. Usually the CAses:...:~.,~"..:,. <br />are br(\urLt to test the validity of bonds issued to finance the 'ir'(. <br />purchflse price. In all suoh ca8es, our 'Iunreme Court has con- ~..' <br />sistently held that limitatioqsor regulations pertaining toi '. <br />taxes do not apply and that suoh bonds and contracts are valld. <br />" f.)"t~ <br />,,,.. , <br /><;,. <br /> <br />Very truly yours, <br /> <br />.1 <br /> <br />Is/ G. W. Spencer <br /> <br />/s/ Herschel ~). Moats <br /> <br />/ <br /> <br />~ I <br /> <br />C (Q).PY <br />