Berry v. Hardee
| Decision Date | 14 April 1922 |
| Citation | 91 So. 685,83 Fla. 531 |
| Parties | BERRY v. HARDEE et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Action by F. W. Berry, Jr., against Cary A. Hardee and others. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the bill of complaint plaintiff appeals.
Order affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Legislative assessments will not be annulled, unless clearly illegal. In the absence of a clear showing of illegality because of conflict with organic property rights, the courts will not annul legislative assessments.
Method of enforcing improvement assessments is within legislative discretion. The method of enforcing payment of assessments whether by administrative sale or by judicial proceedings, is within the legislative discretion.
Assessment under drainage statute held to afford binding notice of assessment on property owner. An assessment made by statute affords binding notice of it to the owner of property assessed; and, if legislative enactments are not so palpably unjust as to violate organic property rights, the owner cannot avoid payment.
Provisions of drainage laws relating to duties of state and county officers do not render it a local act. Provisions of drainage laws (Acts 1913, c. 6456 [Comp. Laws 1914, §§ 635s-635z] Acts 1915, c. 6957, Acts 1919, c. 7862, and Acts 1921, c. 8413 [Rev. Gen. St. 1920, § 1160 et seq.]) regulating the duties of state and county officers, and providing for levying and collecting assessments, are incidental to the main purpose of such acts, and do not violate Const. art. 3, §§ 20, 21, prohibiting passage of special and local laws.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; E. C. Davis, judge.
Marvin C. McIntosh, of Tallahassee, for appellant.
Glenn Terrell, of Tallahassee, for appellees.
The bill of complaint herein seeks an annulment of chapter 6456, Acts of 1913 (Comp. Laws 1914, §§ 635s-635z), and the amendatory acts (chapter 6957, Acts of 1915, chapter 7862, Acts of 1919, and chapter 8413, Acts of 1921 [section 1160 et seq., Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920]), with appropriate injunctions against their enforcement.
The acts establish the Everglades drainage district of the state of Florida for purposes of drainage and reclamation of large areas of lands in the southern portion of the state that had been granted to the state by an act of Congress of September 28, 1850 (9 Stat. 519 [U. S. Comp. St.§§ 4958-4960]), many of which lands had been conveyed to private owners, while other large areas are held by the trustees of the internal improvement fund of the state for the purposes of the trust act (chapter 610, approved January 6, 1855, and the amendments thereto). Lands within the district owned by private parties, as well as the lands held by the trustees for the state, are by the acts assessed in graded amounts per acre to raise funds for use and for the payment of the interest and principal of bonds authorized to be issued for drainage operations under the supervision of state officials; the purpose being to drain and render fit for profitable cultivation the lands that are within the drainage district. This is a public purpose, and state officials are charged with the duty of a proper application of the funds derived from the assessments and from the sale of bonds to a practical drainage of the lands. The assessments are made directly by the legislative enactment, and benefits are presumed. In the absence of a clear showing of illegality because of conflict with organic property rights, the courts will not annul the legislative assessments. See Lainhart v. Catts, 73 Fla. 735, 75 So. 47; Bannerman v. Catts, 80 Fla. 170, 85 So. 336; Everglades Sugar & Land Co. v. Bryan (Fla.) 87 So. 68; Bryan v. Dade Muck Land Co., 75 Fla. 330, 78 So. 349; Stewart v. De Land-Lake Helen Special Road and Bridge Dist. in Volusia County, 71 Fla. 158, 71 So. 42; Anderson v. City of Ocala, 67 Fla. 204, 64 So. 775, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 287; Embree v. Kansas City & Liberty Boulevard Road Dist., 240 U.S. 242, 36 S.Ct. 317, 60 L.Ed. 624.
Provisions of the acts regulating the duties of state and county officers are incidental to the main...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. Dade Muck Land Co.
...acreage tax have been adjudicated. Lainhart v. Catts, 73 Fla. 735, 75 So. 47; Bannerman v. Catts, 80 Fla. 170, 85 So. 336; Berry v. Hardee, 83 Fla. 531, 91 So. 685. maintenance tax levied by chapter 8412, Acts of 1921, was held valid in Richardson v. Hardee, 85 Fla. 510, 96 So. 290. The con......
-
State v. Daniel
... ... Sammons, 62 Fla. 303. 57 So. 196; Lainhart v ... Catts, 73 Fla. 735, 75 So. 47; Bannerman v ... Catts, 80 Fla. 170, 85 So. 336; Berry v ... Hardee, 83 Fla. 531, 91 So. 685 ... The ... county commissioners are provided for by the Constitution ... (article 8,§ 5), ... ...
-
Smith Bros. v. Williams
...47 S.Ct. 563, 71 L.Ed. 992; Standard Pipe Line v. Highway Dist., 277 U.S. 160, 48 S.Ct. 441, 72 L.Ed. 831, 58 A. L. R. 126; Berry v. Hardee, 83 Fla. 531, 91 So. 685; ex rel. v. Bass, 96 Fla. 478, 118 So. 212. If the road improvements, for which the certificates of indebtedness were issued p......
-
Richardson v. Hardee
...of 1921 (sections 1160 et seq., Rev. Gen. Stat.); and the 'Model Drainage Act,' chapter 5377, Acts of 1913, Laws of Florida; Berry v. Hardee, 83 Fla. 531, 91 So. 685; Everglades Sugar & Land Co. v. Bryan, 81 Fla. 75, So. 68; Bannerman v. Catts, 80 Fla. 170, 85 So. 336; Bryan v. Dade Muck La......