Bannerman v. Catts

• Decision Date: 03 July 1920
• Citation: 80 Fla. 170,85 So. 336
• Parties: BANNERMAN v. CATTS, Governor, et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

85 So. 336

80 Fla. 170

BANNERMAN v. CATTS, Governor, et al.

Florida Supreme Court

July 3, 1920

Appeal from Circuit Court, De Soto County; George W. Whitehurst Judge.

Suit for injunction by Robert L. Bannerman against Sidney J Catts, as Governor, and others, as Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District. Demurrer to bill sustained, and complainant appeals. Order affirmed.

Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Chapter 6456 of the Acts of 1913, Laws of Florida (Comp. Laws 1914 ss 635s-635yyyy), as amended by section 1 of chapter 7862 of the Acts of 1919, Laws of Florida, provides for the establishment of the Everglades drainage district, for the purpose of protecting the land embraced therein from the effects of water, for agricultural and sanitary purposes, for the public convenience and welfare, and the public utility and benefit. It is well settled that the drainage and reclamation of swamp and overflowed lands are a proper exercise of legislative authority.

The provisions of chapter 6456, Acts of 1913, Laws of Florida (Comp. Laws 1914, ss 635s-635yyyy), as amended by chapter 7862, Acts of 1919, Laws of Florida, are not in conflict with sections 20 and 21 of article 3 of the Constitution of Florida. See, also, Lainhart v. Catts, 73 Fla. 735 75 So. 47.

The provisions of chapter 6456, Acts of 1913, Laws of Florida (Comp. Laws 1914, ss 635s-635yyyy), as amended by chapter 7862 of the Acts of 1919, Laws of Florida, are not in conflict with sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of article 9 of the Constitution. The assessment made under the acts herein involved is a special assessment for local benefits, and does not come within the sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 of article 9 of the Constitution. See, also, Lainhart v. Catts, supra.

It being within the legislative power to establish, directly, a drainage district for legitimate public purposes (Lainhart v. Catts, supra), it is also within the power of the Legislature to determine the amount of the benefits to be derived, and the necessity and advisability of the local assessment, and, when this is done, it is conclusive, and not subject to review by the courts, unless it is so devoid of any reasonable basis as to be essentially arbitrary and an abuse of power; the Legislature may also fix the amount of taxation, define the boundaries of the district; reduce or raise the drainage tax assessed against the lands in the district, and may also divide the district into zones and provide for the amount to be levied in each zone, as well as determine the benefits to be derived by the lands in the different zones by the improvements proposed.

There are no allegations in the bill of complaint which would warrant the court in granting the relief prayed. It appears from the allegations of the bill that there are 4,500,000 acres of land in this drainage district, and that 5 acres of same belonging to appellant was hammock or upland, and would receive no benefit whatever from the proposed work of drainage and other improvements provided for in and by said act. We cannot conclude from the allegations that the assessment made by the Legislature, directly, is so devoid of any reasonable basis as to be essentially arbitrary and an abuse of power.

Where the Legislature enacts a drainage law, like the one herein involved, it is not necessary for the lawmaking body to embrace in the act a provision for any notice of hearing by the owners of the land in said drainage district prior to the enactment of the law. The Legislature is presumed to have performed its duty correctly and to have made an investigation for itself and determined for itself, before the passage of the act, what lands should be embraced within the drainage district, and what assessment should be made, and what benefits would be received by the owners of the land. Where the district is created by the Legislature and the assessment made by that body, and all things done directly by the Legislature, as was done in this case, the legislative will is supreme, and there can be no question of failure to give notice.

Chapter 6456, Laws of Florida 1913 (Comp. Laws 1914, ss 635s-635yyyy), as amended by chapter 6957, Laws of Florida 1915, as amended by chapter 7862, Acts of 1919, Laws of Florida, is not unconstitutional and does not deprive the owners of the land in the said drainage district of their property without due process of law. See Lainhart v. Catts, supra.

There is nothing in chapter 6456, Laws of Florida 1913 (Comp. Laws 1914, ss 635s-635yyyy), as amended by chapter 6957, Laws of Florida 1915, relative to issuance of bonds and the assessment of taxes thereunder, nor in chapter 7862, Laws of Florida 1919, that would impair any of the rights of a purchaser of lands in the drainage district prior to the enactment of chapter 7862, Laws of Florida, and there is nothing written in chapter 6957, Laws of Florida, upon which it could be claimed that the rates of taxation on the land in the Everglades drainage district were fixed permanently so that they could not be altered by direct act of the Legislature in the passage of chapter 7862, Laws of Florida. The matter of taxation is one which is always subject to change, and every person who purchases real estate in Florida does so subject to the governmental power and authority to raise or change the taxes, to issue bonds, to create special tax school districts, to create special road and bridge districts, and to create drainage districts, any and all of which would have the effect of changing or increasing the rate of taxation.

The provisions of chapter 6456, Laws of Florida 1913 (Comp. Laws 1914, ss 635s-635yyyy), as amended by chapter 6957, Laws of Florida 1915, as amended by chapter 7862, Laws of Florida 1919, are not in conflict with section 4 of article 9 of the Constitution, which provides that 'no money shall be drawn from the treasury except in pursuance of appropriations made by law.' See Lainhart v. Catts, supra.

Chapter 6456, Laws of Florida 1913 (Comp. Laws 1914, ss 635s-635yyyy), as amended by chapter 6957, Laws of Florida 1915, as amended by chapter 7862, Laws of Florida 1919, is not in conflict with section 16 of article 3 of the Constitution. The title to chapter 6456, Laws of Florida, was involved in the case of Lainhart v. Catts, supra, and was upheld by the court in that case, and we can find no defect, or supposed defect, in the title to chapter 6957, Laws of Florida, and chapter 7862, Laws of Florida, that was not disposed of in that case. The title of the respective chapters mentioned clearly relates to the creation of a single district, and not a number of drainage districts throughout the state of Florida, and the language in the body of the act is not inconsistent with anything contained in the title.

Chapter 6456, Laws of Florida 1913 (Comp. Laws 1914, ss 635s-635yyyy), as amended by chapter 6957, Laws of Florida 1915, as amended by chapter 7862, Laws of Florida 1919, is not unconstitutional or invalid. It is claimed that the law interferes with the collection of the state and county taxes, and should be condemned. The claim is not well founded in fact, and counsel in their brief have offered no argument or authorities that would throw any light upon the subject. In the absence of any showing as to why and how the law interferes with the collection of state and county taxes, the court should not declare the law inoperative.

COUNSEL Atkinson & Burdine, of Miami, for appellant.

Glenn Terrell, of Tallahassee, for appellees.

OPINION

WILSON, Circuit Judge.

Robert L. Bannerman, the complainant below, who is appellant here, filed his bill of complaint in the circuit court in and for the Twelfth judicial circuit of Florida, against the commissioners of Everglades drainage district, a corporation under the laws of the state of Florida, and against Cyril Baldwin, tax collector of De Soto county, and H. G. Murphy, as tax assessor of De Soto county, and G. Hunter Bryant, tax assessor of Lee county, and P. John Hart, as tax collector of Lee county, for the purpose of enjoining the said defendants from levying and collecting the Everglades district tax on certain lands of the complainant, which are alleged to be embraced within the limits of the Everglades drainage district, and also for the purpose of praying the court to 'declare chapter 6456 of the Acts of 1913 (Comp. Laws 1914, §§ 635s-635 yyyy), as amended by chapter 6957 of the Acts of 1915, as amended by chapter 7862 of the Acts of 1919, Laws of Florida,' to be unconstitutional and void.

The bill of complaint is quite voluminous and quotes in substance practically every section of the said chapters just above mentioned which are involved in this suit. As these laws are accessible to every one, we see no good reason for copying the said bill of complaint into this decision, but will only refer to such sections of the said chapters as may from time to time be considered necessary in order to make this opinion intelligible. The bill alleges that about four and a helf million acres of land are embraced in this Everglades drainage district, and then proceeds to describe three parcels of land therein which the complainant alleges is his property. The first description designated as tract No. 1 is as follows:

The south half of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section 7 in township 40 south, range 33 east, containing 20 acres, more or less.

And the second description designated as tract No. 2 is as follows:

Beginning at the southeast corner of the northeast quarter of section 25 in township 42 south of range 29 east; thence run north 466 feet; thence west 466 feet; thence south 466 feet; thence east 466 feet to the point of beginning--containing in all 5...