Arnold v. State ex rel. Mallison

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtAuthor: Chapman
Citation147 Fla. 324,2 So.2d 874
PartiesARNOLD et al. v. STATE ex rel. MALLISON.
Decision Date30 May 1941

2 So.2d 874

147 Fla. 324

ARNOLD et al.
v.
STATE ex rel. MALLISON.

Florida Supreme Court

May 30, 1941


Rehearing Denied July 2, 1941.

En Banc. [2 So.2d 875]

[147 Fla. 327] Waybright & Waybright, of Jacksonville, for plaintiffs in error.

L. R. Milton and Austin Miller, both of Jacksonville, for defendant in error.

CHAPMAN, Justice.

This case is before the Court on writ of error to a final judgment awarding a peremptory writ of mandamus issued by the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida. The peremptory writ commanded the Playground and Recreational Board of the City of Jacksonville to convene and rescind that certain resolution adopted by it under date of May 29, 1940, and to reinstate relator as Superintendent of Recreation and permit the relator to perform all the duties of Superintendent of Recreation and that they cause to be paid the salary of the relator beginning June 16, 1940 and ending July 31, 1940, at the sum or sums per month stated in the peremptory writ.

Chapter 9788, Special Acts of 1923, Laws of Florida, created the Playground and Recreational Board of the City of Jacksonville. The Board had the power to acquire, establish, maintain and construct playgrounds and recreation centers and to employ playground [147 Fla. 328] leaders, playground directors, a Recreation Superintendent, and such other officers or employees as the Board deemed proper. The Board was granted the exclusive control over and disbursement of all moneys appropriated and collected and placed to the credit of the Playground and Recreation Fund.

Prior to September 19, 1929, the Board employed the relator as Superintendent of [2 So.2d 876] Recreation and he continued to perform and discharge said duties until June 15, 1940. Among the duties of the Superintendent of are, viz.: To obtain recreation workers; to increase their capabilities; promote special events; co-ordinate the efforts of specialized workers; plan socials for neighborhood groups and to direct activities as planned; supervise swimming meets, track meets and civil celebrations; assist Federal employees; plan city-wide observances; assist civic groups; serve as adult adviser to Model Aeroplane Club; answer correspondence; co-operate with school authorities in physical education program; lead community singing; arrange for band concerts; develop citizenship in the young by every appropriate means through supervised leisure time activities. The salary of the Superintendent of was fixed by the Playground and Board at the sum of $325.00 per month.

The resolution dated May 29, 1940, adopted by the Playground and Recreation Board, which the peremptory writ commanded the Board to rescind, was to the effect that the position of Superintendent of Recreation does not justify the expenditure therefor and that the money used in the payment of the salary of the Superintendent of Recreation could be used to better advantage in the development of playgrounds and that said position of Superintendent of Recreation as provided [147 Fla. 329] for by Section 1 of Chapter 9788, Special Acts of 1923, was unnecessary and unwarranted and that the position of Superintendent of Recreation be abolished as of June 15, 1940.

Chapter 16866, Acts of 1935, Laws of Florida created or established a Civil Service for the employees of the City of Jacksonville. Section 1 of the Act created a Civil Service Board and prescribed the qualification for membership and duration of commission. The Board was to be appointed by the City Commission and confirmed by a majority of all the members of the City Council. Section 3 of said Act divided the employees of said City into the classified and unclassified service. Section 4 of the Act granted the Civil Service Board power to: (a) adopt and amend rules and regulations for the administration of the Act; (b) make investigations concerning the enforcement and effect of the Act and to hear and determine appeals and complaints respecting the administration of the Act; (c) maintain a roster of the officers and employees showing their occupation, compensation and residence; (d) ascertain and record the duties and responsibilities appertaining to all positions and to classify the same; (e) hold competitive tests to determine qualifications of persons seeking employment in the various classes of positions; (f) certify to the appointing authority the names of person or persons highest on the employment or re-employment list for the class; (g) establish records of performance and a system service rating to be used in determining promotions and other purposes.

Section 5 of the Act provided that any person holding a position in the classified service on the 15th day of April, 1935, and having been in the service for a year prior thereto should be retained in the service [147 Fla. 330] without performance tests and should be subject to all the provisions of the Act and be regarded as holding their positions under provisional appointment.

The position of Superintendent of Recreation created by Chapter 9788, supra, and to which the relator was appointed and which he held continuously until June, 1940, was employment controlled by the provisions of Chapter 16866, Acts of 1935. Section 7 of the latter Act provides:

'Section 7. With the approval of the Civil Service Board, additional classes may be established for new positions created, or positions not included in any previously established class may be allocated thereto, as the administration may require. Any existing class or classes may be divided, combined, altered or abolished and positions allocated to any class or classes may be reallocated. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Ideal Farms Drainage Dist. v. Certain Lands
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 9, 1944
    ...the force and effect of each statute and cause the same to harmonize, it is their duty so to do. See Arnold v. State ex rel. Millison, 147 Fla. 324, 2 So.2d 874; American Bakeries Co. v. City of Haines City, 131 Fla. 790, 180 So. 524. In construing statutes courts are required to look to th......
  • Glendinning v. Curry
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 16, 1943
    ...of the law;' Bloodworth v. Beck, 139 Fla. 72, 190 So. 503; State v. Chancey, 129 Fla. 194, 176 So. 78, 113 A.L.R. 576 and Arnold v. State, 147 Fla. 324, 2 So.2d 874, in both of which last two cases it was held that under the respective city charters therein involved civil service employees ......
  • West v. Board of County Com'rs, Monroe County, No. 78-2060
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • July 24, 1979
    ...the reinstatement with back pay of an improperly discharged or demoted governmental employee. E. g., Arnold v. State ex rel. Mallison, 147 Fla. 324, 2 So.2d 874 (1941); Noel v. State ex rel. Siers, 125 Fla. 344, 170 So. 114 (1936); Roark v. State ex rel. McDaniel, 122 Fla. 843, 164 So. 901 ......
  • Plymel v. Moore, No. 1D99-1250.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • October 26, 2000
    ...that are not specifically denied are admitted to be true." See Holcomb, 609 So.2d at 753, citing Arnold v. State ex rel. Mallison, 147 Fla. 324, 2 So.2d 874 (1941). Therefore, when the Department of Corrections response fails to refute the allegations of the petition which show entitlement ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Ideal Farms Drainage Dist. v. Certain Lands
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 9, 1944
    ...the force and effect of each statute and cause the same to harmonize, it is their duty so to do. See Arnold v. State ex rel. Millison, 147 Fla. 324, 2 So.2d 874; American Bakeries Co. v. City of Haines City, 131 Fla. 790, 180 So. 524. In construing statutes courts are required to look to th......
  • Glendinning v. Curry
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 16, 1943
    ...of the law;' Bloodworth v. Beck, 139 Fla. 72, 190 So. 503; State v. Chancey, 129 Fla. 194, 176 So. 78, 113 A.L.R. 576 and Arnold v. State, 147 Fla. 324, 2 So.2d 874, in both of which last two cases it was held that under the respective city charters therein involved civil service employees ......
  • West v. Board of County Com'rs, Monroe County, No. 78-2060
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • July 24, 1979
    ...the reinstatement with back pay of an improperly discharged or demoted governmental employee. E. g., Arnold v. State ex rel. Mallison, 147 Fla. 324, 2 So.2d 874 (1941); Noel v. State ex rel. Siers, 125 Fla. 344, 170 So. 114 (1936); Roark v. State ex rel. McDaniel, 122 Fla. 843, 164 So. 901 ......
  • Plymel v. Moore, No. 1D99-1250.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • October 26, 2000
    ...that are not specifically denied are admitted to be true." See Holcomb, 609 So.2d at 753, citing Arnold v. State ex rel. Mallison, 147 Fla. 324, 2 So.2d 874 (1941). Therefore, when the Department of Corrections response fails to refute the allegations of the petition which show entitlement ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT