Antuono v. City of Tampa

• Decision Date: 04 February 1924
• Citation: 99 So. 324,87 Fla. 82
• Parties: ANTUONO v. CITY OF TAMPA et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

99 So. 324

87 Fla. 82

ANTUONO v. CITY OF TAMPA et al.

Florida Supreme Court

February 4, 1924

Rehearing Denied Feb. 21, 1924.

Suit by Val M. Antuono against the City of Tampa and others. From a decree for defendants, plaintiff appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Supreme Court may determine merits of appeal without passing on application for preliminary injunction. Where an appeal has been duly taken from an order denying an injunction, and an application is made to the Supreme Court for an injunctional order, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, pending the appeal, predicated upon the organic power of the Supreme Court to issue 'all writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction,' and the questions presented are of law only, and the cause has been by consent fully argued on its merits, the court may, in the interest of public good, determine the merits of the appeal without passing upon the application for a preliminary injunction.

Statute does not contemplate unreasonable exercise of authority conferred. A statute does not contemplate an unreasonable exercise of authority conferred by it, particularly when the taxing power and material property rights are involved.

Action by officers must legal and reasonable. Action taken by municipal officers must be both legal and reasonable. This is particularly so under general grants of power.

Propositions to be voted on should be stated separately. In submitting to the electors for their approval or rejections several questions as to the issue of bonds for public purposes 'if there are two or more separate and distinct propositions to be voted on, each proposition should be stated separately and distinctly, so that a voter may declare his opinion as to each matter separately, since several propositions cannot be united in one submission to the voters so as to call for one assenting or dissenting vote upon all the propositions; and elections are invalid where held under such restrictions as to prevent the voter from casting his individual intelligent vote upon the object or objects sought to be obtained. The object of the rule preventing the submission of several and distinct propositions to the people united as one in such a manner as to compel the voter to reject or accept all is to prevent the joining of one local subject to others in such a way that each shall gather votes for all, and thus one measure, by its popularity or its apparent necessity, carries other measures not so popular or necessary and which the people, if granted the opportunity of separate ballots, might defeat. However, unless otherwise provided, it is proper to submit a number of propositions or questions at one time, providing the ordinance specifies each separate question or proposition as such, and provision is made by which the voters are given opportunity to vote upon each specific proposition or question independent of the other questions submitted at the same time. This may be done upon a single ballot, but the ballot must state each proposition separately, so that the voter may be able to express his will with reference to each question.'

The rule above stated is amply sustained by reason and authority it accords with the principles of fair dealing required of all officials in the exercise of public functions, powers, or duties; and it is not in conflict with, but conforms to, the views expressed and the decisions made on the facts presented in the cases of Potter v. Lainhart, 44 Fla. 647, 33 So. 251; Perry v. Town of Panama City, 67 Fla. 285 65 So. 6; Merrell v. City of St. Petersburg, 74 Fla 194, 76 So. 699.

Submission of proposition containing unrelated objects for bond issue as single question illegal act which may be enjoined. Where one proposition containing seven separate, distinct, and unrelated objects for large bond issues is to be submitted to the electors to be voted for or against as a single question, which, considered with the pleadings in the case, clearly shows an illegal act by the submitting officers with reference to the election, such illegal act may be enjoined.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; M. A. McMullen, judge.

COUNSEL

Knight, Thompson & Turner and James F. Glen, all of Tampa, for appellant.

Hilton S. Hampton and Mabry, Reaves & Carlton, all of Tampa, for appellees.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

A suit in equity was brought by Antuono in which it is prayed that the city officials be temporarily enjoined and restrained 'from submitting to the electors of the city of Tampa, qualified to vote at an election for that purpose, the various projects set forth in the said Ordinance No. 129-A, in the manner in which the same are proposed to be submitted in the said ordinance, or in any manner preventing the qualified electors from expressing a free and fair choice on the proposition of issuing bonds of the city of Tampa, and further enjoining and restraining the defendants and each of them from expending any moneys of the city of Tampa for the purpose of holding an election in the manner proposed, or otherwise than in accordance with law, and that upon final hearing of this cause the said injunction be made perpetual.' Defendants answered.

The ordinance referred to is as follows:

'An ordinance calling an election to vote upon the issuing of bonds of the city of Tampa.

'Be it ordained by the city commission of the city of Tampa:

'Section 1. That a special election of the qualified electors who are taxpayers of the city of Tampa, who paid taxes on their own property in said city, assessed and levied for the calendar year 1923, and who are also freeholders therein, is hereby called to be held on the 12th day of February, A. D. 1924, at which election the following questions concerning the issuance of bonds of the city of Tampa for the payment of all or a portion of the costs of the following improvements respectively shall be submitted:

'1. Shall $75,000 bonds be issued for the acquisition and improvements of property for public wharves and sheds?

'2. Shall $125,000 bonds be issued for the improvement of public parks and the acquisition and improvement of additional lands for public park purposes?

'3. Shall $215,000 bonds be issued for an addition to the city hospital and $35,000 bonds be issued for a hospital or addition for the negro race and a site therefor, if necessary?

'4. Shall $250,000 bonds be issued to construct and equip an auditorium for public gatherings?

'5. Shall the following bonds be issued:

'$750,000 for extension and repair of the existing sanitary sewage system and for storm sewers and drains.

'$111,000 for opening, widening and improving Lafayette street from the eastern terminus thereof to the Seaboard Air Line tracks, and constructing a viaduct at said tracks.

'$100,000 for the improvement of the fire alarm system and for new fire stations, sites and equipment.

'$30,000 for an incinerator of garbage and a site therefor.

'$100,000 for extending water mains.

'$325,000 for constructing a bridge at Cass street, and $325,000 for constructing a bridge at or near Carew street.

'$250,000 to extend existing seawall along the bay and river front from Magnolia avenue east to Platt street, also from Rome avenue southwardly to the present city limits and construct and improve a roadway and parkway along the seawall as so extended; subject, as to said $250,000 bonds to the receipt of bona fide subscriptions of property owners agreeing to pay as much as one-third of the cost of said seawall as estimated by the city engineer, the cost of said roadway and parkway to be apportioned as may be provided by law.

'6. Shall $250,000 bonds be issued for the construction of a bridge at Fortune street?

'Sec. 2. That ballots shall be prepared for said election stating the substance of each of said six numbered propositions, in the affirmative and the negative, with squares before each affirmative and negative, and with directions to the voters to place a cross mark (X) in the square before either the affirmative or the negative of each proposition to indicate that he favors such proposition or is opposed to the same.

'Sec. 3. Bonds shall not be issued for any purpose unless a majority of the votes cast at said election be in favor of the proposition embracing such bonds.

'Sec. 4. That this ordinance shall be sufficient direction to all officers upon whom duties concerning election are imposed by the charter, laws or ordinances, to perform such duties.

'Passed by the city commission of the city of Tampa this 18th day of December, A. D. 1923.

Chas. H. Brown,

'Mayor-Commissioner.

'Attest: Wm. E. Duncan, City Clerk.'

From the following order an appeal was taken returnable to February 29, 1924:

'The foregoing cause coming on this day to be heard upon application of complainant for a temporary injunction as prayed for in the bill of complaint, and the court having heard the argument of the respective counsel, and the same having been argued by counsel for the respective parties and duly considered by the court, it is ordered that said application for temporary injunction be and the same is hereby denied, upon authority of Potter v. Lainhart, 44 Fla. 657, 33 So. 251; Perry v. Panama City, 67...