
    BLOCKER v. CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG et al.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Aug. 3, 1936.
    Charles J. Schuh, of St. Petersburg, for appellant.';
    Carroll R. -Runyon, of St. Petersburg1, for appellees.
   PER CURIAM.

The appeal herein is from a decree dismissing a -bill of complaint seeking to enjoin the i^sue of $110,000 of hospital rev-; enue certificates by. the city of St. Peters-burg, Fla., without an approving vote of the freeholder electors of the city, as required by section 6, article 9, Constitution, as amended in 1930; the purpose of the issue being for improvements and additions to the. existing municipal hospital of the city of St. Petersburg.-

The hospital revenue certificates are to be paid solely from revenue derived from the operation of the said municipal hospital, and not otherwise.

The decree dismissing the bill of complaint should be affirmed on the authority of State ex rel. v. City of Miami, 113 Fla. 280, 152 So. 6, and other like cases. See Boykin v. Town of River Junction (Fla.) 169 So. 492; Roach v. City of Tampa (Fla.) 169 So. 627; State ex rel. Vero Beach v. MacConnell, No. 1 (Fla.) 169 So. 628; Williams v. Town of Dunnellon (Fla.) 169 So. 631; Bradley v. City of Homestead (Fla.) 169 So. 639; and other like cases decided at this term.

WHITFIELD, C. J., and TERRELL, BROWN, BUFORD, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

ELLIS, P. J.,

concurs upon the principle announced in his specially concurring opinion in the case of State ex rel. City of Vero Beach v. MacConnell (Fla.) 169 So. 628, this day filed.  