Pursley v. City of Ft. Myers
Decision Date | 06 May 1924 |
Citation | 100 So. 366,87 Fla. 428 |
Parties | PURSLEY v. CITY OF FT. MYERS. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Suit by C. C. Pursley against and City of Ft. Myers. From an order denying an injunction, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
Self-determination enlargement of corporate powers unauthorized. Chapter 6940, Laws of Florida 1915, authorizes any city or town to change its form of government or method of exercising the jurisdiction and powers already granted to it by legislative enactment, but does not authorize a self-determination enlargement of its corporate powers beyond limitations prescribed by law.
Lawmaking function of Legislature may not be abdicated. Under the doctrine of a separation of the powers of government, the lawmaking function is assigned exclusively to the Legislature. Any attempt to abdicate it in any particular field is unauthorized, unless expressly authorized by the Constitution.
Delegation of legislative power to municipality in matters forming appropriate subjects of municipal regulation valid. Section 8 of article 8 of the Constitution, empowering the Legislature to establish and to abolish municipalities and provide for their government, and to prescribe their jurisdiction and powers, and to alter or amend the same at any time, is an exclusive assignment of power to the Legislature; but the delegation of legislative power to a municipal corporation in matters which form appropriate subjects of municipal regulation is valid.
Liberty in administration of local affairs recognized. This state has consistently adhered to the doctrine of municipal liberty in the administration of local affairs, so far as the same is consistent with the provisions of the Constitution vesting in the Legislature the power of prescribing the jurisdiction and powers of municipalities.
New charter altering powers already vested by statute held invalid. An attempt on the part of a municipality under the provisions of chapter 6940, Acts of 1915, to adopt for itself a new charter, not merely changing the order or form of its government, but prescribing its jurisdiction and powers, and altering, and amending the powers already vested in the municipality by legislative enactment, is unauthorized and invalid.
Charter amendment held not validated by legislative act. Chapter 8953, Acts of 1921, a special act passed for the purpose of legalizing and validating an election held in the city of Ft Myers, at which amendments to the charter of the city affecting not only its form of government, but prescribing the jurisdiction and powers of the proposed new government and altering and amending the powers already vested in the municipality by legislative enactment, did not have the effect of giving validity to the action of the municipality in so far as it sought by the election validated to prescribe the powers and jurisdiction of the municipality which were in excess or amendatory of the powers already vested in the municipality by legislative authority.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lee County; George W. Whitehurst, judge.
Cyrus Q. Stewart, of Ft. Myers, for appellant.
F. C. Alderman and F. A. Whitney, both of Ft. Myers, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order denying an application for an injunction to restrain the city of Ft. Myers from issuing certain bonds for paving, installing storm sewers, water mains, sanitary sewers, and a gas plant. The amount of the proposed bond issue is $445,000. It was provided for by an ordinance adopted by the city commissioners, calling an election to be participated in by the freeholders of the city to decide whether the proposed bond issue should be approved. The election was held, the bond issue approved, the bonds advertised for sale, and contracts made for the sale of them.
The city of Ft. Myers was incorporated in 1905 by special act of the Legislature (chapter 5496), and that chapter has been amended by subsequent acts of the Legislature.
In 1915 the Legislature passed an act entitled 'An act authorizing cities and towns to amend their charters and to adopt charters for their government.' See chapter 6940, Laws of Florida 1915.
The first section of the act contains the grant of power to cities and towns. The remaining sections of the act prescribe the methods or procedure according to which the powers granted in the first section may be made available. A careful analysis of the first section of the act will reveal that the purpose of the Legislature was to authorize any city or town to change its form of government or method of exercising the jurisdiction and powers already granted to it by legislative enactment. No city or town was authorized by that act to enlarge its corporate powers beyond limitations prescribed by law, as the proviso to the section clearly indicates.
Section 1 is as follows:
It is contended by appellant that Acts of 1915, c. 6940, supra, is void because it is an attempted delegation of legislative power to the people of local communities to enact charters for their municipal government. Voting to themselves, in other words, such powers as they desire in the administration of local public affairs within limitations prescribed by the Constitution and statutes.
Under the doctrine of the separation of the powers of government the lawmaking function is assigned exclusively to the Legislature. The generally recognized rule is that any attempt to abdicate it in any particular field, although valid in form, is unconstitutional and void. It is a cardinal principle of representative government that, except when authorized by the Constitution, as may be the case in reference to municipal corporations, the Legislature cannot delegate the power to make laws to any other authority or body. 6 R. C. L. 164; State v. Butler, 105 Me. 91, 73 A. 560, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 744, 18 Ann. Cas. 484; State ex rel. Mueller v. Thompson, 149 Wis. 488, 137 N.W. 20, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 339, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 774; Wyeth v. Board of Health of City of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith Bros. v. Williams
... ... L.Ed. 330, decided in 1926; State ex rel. v. Ball, ... 116 Tex. 527, 296 S.W. 1085. See City of Ft. Myers v ... State, 95 Fla. 704, 117 So. 99; Stewart v. Daytona, ... etc., 94 Fla. 859, ... 330; Embree v. K. C. & L. B. Road Dist., ... 240 U.S. 242, 36 S.Ct. 317, 60 L.Ed. 624; Pursley v. Ft ... Myers, 87 Fla. 428, 100 So. 366; Burnett v ... Greene, 97 Fla. 1007, 122 So. 570; ... ...
-
Smith v. Ayres, s. 33948
...were fixed by a special act of the Legislature pursuant to Section 8, of Article VIII of the Constitution, citing Pursley v. City of Fort Myers, 87 Fla. 428, 100 So. 366. Pursley v. Fort Myers, supra, likewise involved proceedings by which the City, under authority of Chapter 6940, supra, a......
-
Chiles v. Children A, B, C, D, E, and F
...to any other branch. Any attempt by the legislature to abdicate its particular constitutional duty is void. Pursley v. City of Fort Myers, 87 Fla. 428, 432, 100 So. 366, 367 (1924); Bailey v. Van Pelt, 78 Fla. 337, 350, 82 So. 789, 793 (1919). As recently as 1978, in Askew v. Cross Key Wate......
-
In re Op. of the Justices
...the separation of powers doctrine—the power to legislate is an exclusive power granted to the legislature, see Pursley v. City of Ft. Myers , 87 Fla. 428, 100 So. 366, 367 (1924). "[W]hile the Legislature may not divest itself of its proper functions, or delegate its general legislative aut......