Such invalid statute or part of a statute could not be validated by statute or by judicial decree. See Brown v. City of Lakeland, 61 Fla. 508, 54 So. 716; Munroe v. Reeves, 71 Fla. 612, 71 So. 922; Weinberger v. Board of Public Instruction, 93 Fla. 470, 112 So. 253; Nuveen Co. v. City of Quincy, 115 Fla. 510, 156 So. 153; 94 A.L.R. 600; State, ex rel. Nuveen, v. Greer, 88 Fla. 249, 102 So. 739, 37 A.L.R. 1298. * * * "The power to establish a municipality may not lawfully be so exercised as to be an abuse of power or authority to incorporate an area where there is no resident population or where the population is so small and disproportionate to an enormously excessive area included in the boundaries, when the patently and grossly excessive area is not suitable for municipal purposes, and cannot be benefited by the municipality or its public facilities or improvements and cannot be needed for a reasonably expected growth of the municipality or the needs of the municipality.

The portion of the statute purporting to authorize the town to issue bonds for public free school purposes, had never been adjudicated to be constitutional and as the statute and the bonds showed on their face that the bonds were for a purpose impliedly forbidden by Article III of the Constitution, as interpreted in State, ex rel., v. L'Engle, 40 Fla. 392, 24 So.2d 539, and Brown v. City of Lakeland, 61 Fla. 508, 54 So.2d 716, the school bonds issued by the town were invalid and could not be enforced as bonds of the town. See State, ex rel. Nuveen, v. Greer, 88 Fla. 249, 102 So.2d 739, 37 A.L.R. 1298; Nuveen v. Quincy, 115 Fla. 510, 156 So.2d 153, 94 A.L.R. 600. In the Weinberger case the bonds on their face showed they violated the terms of Section 17, Article XII, of the Constitution, which regulates the terms of bonds issued by special tax school districts.

The city pleaded the statute of limitations. After delays whose cause does not appear, the Supreme Court finally upheld that defense July 26, 1934. Nuveen Co. v. City of Quincy, 115 Fla. 510, 156 So. 153. The following December the present bill in equity was filed against the city and the board and the trustees of the school district. Thus detailing the facts, the bill prayed that the city be decreed a trustee of the school building as to the proportion of its value due to the investment of Nuveen's money in it, the lot being alleged to be of the value of $2,000, Nuveen's contribution $10,000, and the board's $8,000; that an account be taken of the fair rentals due to Nuveen for its use; that necessary deeds be made to Nuveen to express his interest in the property; that a partition be made by sale if necessary; and in the alternative that Nuveen's contribution be charged as a lien on the building and that it be sold to pay the lien if not otherwise discharged; and there was a prayer for general relief.

Van Deren v. Lory, 87 Fla. 422, 100 So. 794 (1924); Brown v. Case, 80 Fla. 703, 86 So. 684 (1920).Moynihan v. Elliott, 211 F.2d 723 (5th Cir. 1954); Vilord v. Jenkins, 226 So.2d 245 (Fla.App. 2d Dist. 1969); Special Tax School District No. 1 v. Hillman, 131 Fla. 725, 179 So. 805 (1938); Nuveen v. City of Quincy, 115 Fla. 510, 156 So. 153 (1934); Bourne v. State Bank of Orlando Trust Co., 106 Fla. 46, 142 So. 810 (1932). Plaintiff insisted that the letter set forth in Note 5, supra, is a written contract, of which he is a third-party beneficiary, and upon which this action was founded; thus, he contended, this action was timely commenced within the five-year statute of limitations.

Town of Belleair v. Olds, 5 Cir., 127 F.2d 838. We agree with appellant also that though he may not recover on the contract against the defense that he cannot show compliance with the charter in making it, the agreement that the city would pay it back in three years, bound him, and until the expiration of that time, or an earlier repudiation of it, plaintiff could not sue upon, his cause of action for moneys had and received for until then it did not accrue, and limitations therefore did not commence to run upon it. Nuveen Co. v. City of Quincy, 115 Fla. 510, 156 So. 153, 94 A.L.R. 600; Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Hillsborough County, 129 Fla. 98, 176 So. 72, 76; Special Tax School District No. 1 v. Hillman, 131 Fla. 725, 179 So. 805; Cf. Federal Reserve Bank v. Atlanta Trust Co., 5 Cir., 91 F.2d 283, 117 A.L.R. 1160. In Federal Reserve Bank v. Atlanta Trust Co., 5 Cir., 91 F.2d at page 288, we pointed out that each cause of action has its own limitation and is barred only when the time for that particular action has run after its complete accrual.

Leather Manufacturers' National Bank v. Merchants' Bank, 128 U.S. 26, 9 S.Ct. 3, 32 L. Ed. 342; Gordon v. Camp, 2 Fla. 422; Cullen v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 63 Fla. 122, 58 So. 182; Torgeson v. Department of Trade Commerce, 127 Neb. 49, 254 N.W. 740; Citizens' Bank v. First National Bank, 101 Fla. 908, 132 So. 478. Such an action, under Florida law, is barred in three years. Leather Manufacturers' National Bank v. Merchants' Bank, supra; Hayes v. Belleair Dev. Co., 120 Fla. 326, 162 So. 698; Wood on Limitations (4th Ed.) § 144; Ball v. Roney, 112 Fla. 186, 150 So. 240; Johnson v. Harrison Hardware Furniture Co., 119 Fla. 470, 152 So. 708, 160 So. 878; Nuveen v. Quincy, 115 Fla. 510, 156 So. 153, 94 A.L.R. 600; State v. Florida Ry., 80 Fla. 411, 86 So. 691; American Cyanimid Co. v. Wilson Toomer Fertilizer Co. (C.C.A.) 51 F.2d 665. Appellees are right, too, in the view they take of this case that if it is cognizable in equity, it is cognizable also at law, the jurisdiction exercised is not independent, but concurrent, and that a court of equity will apply the statute of limitations in bar of the legal right asserted as absolutely as would a court of law. Hayes v. Belleair Dev. Co., 120 Fla. 326, 162 So. 698; Dees v. Smith, 55 Fla. 652, 46 So. 173; Erickson v. Ins. Co., 66 Fla. 154, 63 So. 716; McNair v. Burt (C.C.A.) 68 F.2d 814; Heard v. Houston Gulf Gas Co. (C.C.A.) 78 F.2d 189; Tenth Ward Road Dist. v. T. P.R. Co. (C.C.A.) 12 F.2d 245, 45 A.L.R. 1513; Hughes v. Reed (C.C.A.) 46 F.2d 435; Baker v. Cummings, 169 U.S. 189, 18 S.Ct. 367, 42 L.Ed. 711; Curtis v. Connly, 257 U.S. 260, 42 S.Ct. 100, 66 L.Ed. 222; McCaleb v. Fox Film Corp. (C.C.A.) 299 F. 48.

On the contrary, it appears that the holder of the bonds made inquiry from time to time from the bond broker from whom the bonds were purchased, who not only sold bonds but serviced bonds that he sold, who advised him two or three times a year as to what the situation was, and that he knew nothing of the invalidity of the bonds until about six months prior to the time the judgment was obtained in the United Mutual Life Insurance Company case in January, 1939.         Certainly the case at bar is distinguishable from the Nuveen case, Nuveen v. City of Quincy, 115 Fla. 510, 156 So. 153, 94 A.L.R. 600, in that notice was given the bond holders of the repudiation of the bonds, while in the case at bar no notice was given.         The copy of the bill of complaint filed by the defendant Board of Public Instruction for Okaloosa County against United Mutual Life Insurance Company in the state court, filed in evidence here, and the notice given makes parties defendant not only those specifically named but other bond holders as well.

See Jefferson County v. Lewis, 20 Fla. 980 (1884). Where bonds are unconstitutional and void ab initio, and the purchaser takes them with knowledge of their potential invalidity, the recitals of constitutionality will not be held binding on the issuer, Nuveen v. City of Quincy, 115 Fla. 510, 156 So. 153 (1934), but after validation, the courts will protect even the purchasers of unconstitutional bonds. See Columbia County v. King, 13 Fla. 451 (1870); Patterson, Legal Aspects of Florida Municipal Bond Financing, 6 U.Fla. L.Rev. 287, 289 (1953) [hereinafter cited as Patterson].

An action at law for money had and received does not lie in favor of a cestui que trust against his trustee for the recovery of his interest in the trust fund. Adams v. Camden Safe Deposit Trust Co., 121 N.J.L. 389, 2 A.2d 361; Howard's Estate v. Howe, 344 Mo. 1245, 131 S.W.2d 517; Nuveen v. City of Quincy, 115 Fla. 510, 156 So. 153, 94 A.L.R. 600. PER CURIAM.

The question presented herein to my mind is analogous to one which we decided in the case of Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Hillsborough County, 129 Fla. 98, 176 So. 72, wherein we held that under such circumstances a contractor might sue the governmental unit upon the theory of implied contract and that our statute of limitations would not bar such a suit unless the statutory period had expired before suit was instituted, when calculated upon the basis of having begun to run at the time of the judicial determination that the law under which the certificates were issued was invalid. Moreover, in Nuveen v. City of Quincy, 115 Fla. 510, 156 So. 153, 94 A.L.R. 600, we discussed the question: When does the three year statute of limitations begin to run against the maintenance of a bondholder's action in assumpsit in a situation wherein the bonds have been declared invalid? In that case we recognized the proposition that under such circumstances the statute begins to run from the date upon which the judgment declaring the bonds invalid becomes final.