Board of Public Instruction of Lafayette County v. Union School Furnishing Co.

• Decision Date: 28 July 1930
• Citation: 100 Fla. 326,129 So. 824
• Parties: BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF LAFAYETTE COUNTY et al. v. UNION SCHOOL FURNISHING CO.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

129 So. 824

100 Fla. 326

BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF LAFAYETTE COUNTY et al. v. UNION SCHOOL FURNISHING CO.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

July 28, 1930

Suit by the Union School Furnishing Company against the Board of Public Instruction for the County of Lafayette and others. Decree for complainant, and defendants appeal. On rehearing.

Reversed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Lafayette County; M F. Horne, judge.

COUNSEL

McCollum & Howell, of Jacksonville, for appellants.

Davis &amp Pepper, of Perry, for appellee.

OPINION

BUFORD J.

A bill of complaint was filed by the appellee to reform as to execution certain notes which had been executed as is alleged for an indebtedness of the board by the members of the board of public instruction of Lafayette county and to enforce the payment of such notes. The first note dated June 4, 1917, was for $750 and payable July 10, 1921. The signature was as follows:

'[Seal]

'J. Homer Kelly,

'Co. Supt. & Secry.

'A. D. Townsend

'N. N. Barber

'T. S. Walker

'Board of Public Instruction of Lafayette Co. Florida.'

It was alleged that certain payments were made on this note.

The next note was dated December 31, 1920, and was for the sum of $700, payable one year after date. This note was executed as follows:

'[Seal]

'A. D. Townsend

'Chairman

'J. Homer Kelly

'Co. Supt. & Secty.

'Board of Public Instruction of Lafayette Co. [Seal.] Florida.'

This note had attached thereto two interest coupons, one payable June 30, 1921, and one December 31, 1921.

The next note was dated December 31, 1920, was for $650.35, was payable two years after date with interest at 8 per cent. per annum payable semiannnually, and had attached thereto four interest coupon notes for the sum of $26 each payable at the semiannual periods. It was executed as follows:

'A. D. Townsend

'Chairman

'J. Homer Kelly

'Co. Supt. & Secty.

'Board of Public [Seal.] Instruction of Lafayette County, Florida.'

The next note was dated August 11, 1920, was for the sum of $1,193.50, payable one year after date with 8 per cent. interest payable semiannually, and had attached thereto two coupon interest notes for $47.74 each, payable at semiannual periods. It was executed as follows:

'A. D. Townsend, Chm.

'J. Homer Kelly, Sec'y

'By order of the [Seal] Board of Public Instruction of Lafayette County, Florida.

'Approved:

'J. Homer Kelly,

'County Supt. Lafayette Co., Fla.'

The next note was dated August 11, 1920, was for $1,200, payable two years after date with interest coupon notes for $48 each payable at semiannual periods. It was executed as follows:

'A. D. Townsend, Cham.

'J. Homer Kelly, Sec'y

'By order of the Board [Seal] of Public Instruction of Lafayette County, Florida.'

'Approved:

'J. Homer Kelly

'County Supt. Lafayette Co. Fla.'

There was another like note for like amount with like coupons executed in like manner payable three years after date, and another note of the same date, August 11, 1920, of like tenor and effect payable four years after date; and another note of the same date and of like tenor and effect payable five years after date.

The bill prayed that the execution of the notes be reformed so that the execution of each would appear as follows:

'The Board of Public Instruction for

'the County of Lafayette, State of

'Florida.

[Seal.]

'By A. D. Townsend, Chairman.

'Attest:

'J. Homer Kelly

'County Superintendent and Secretary.'

A demurrer was filed to the bill of complaint which was overruled. Then answer was filed, and after the taking of testimony decree was entered in favor of the complainant. From the decree appeal was taken and the overruling of the demurrer is assigned as one of the errors.

It appears that reformation was sought so as to bring the notes within the purview of chapter 8549, Acts of 1921, section 577, Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, and it further appears that if these notes had been obligations which the board of public instruction of Lafayette county was authorized to incur under the Constitution, then the reformation of the execution might have been sought in a court of chancery for the purpose of bringing the obligations clearly within the purview of the statute above referred to.

It is too elementary, however, to require any citation of authority that the Legislature could not by its attempted enactment make valid and binding an obligation of the county board of public instruction which it could not by its enactment authorize such board of public instruction to incur and execute. The notes here under consideration are for all intents and purposes bonds.

In Re Advisory Opinion to Governor, dated November 23, 1927, 94 Fla. 967, 114 So. 850, 855, the court had under consideration a ninety-day note made by the state road department to the Capital City Bank of Tallahassee for the sum of $20,000 with interest at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum from date until paid. The court, in effect, held that this note was not a valid obligation because it was an attempted obligation on the part of a state agency in violation of section 6 of article 9 of the Constitution, and in this connection the court say:

'The construction and maintenance of state roads are now among the current expenses of the state, to defray which expenses the Constitution (section 2, article 9) commands the Legislature to provide for raising revenue sufficient for each fiscal year. The Constitution contemplates that state expenses shall not exceed the revenue raised for each fiscal year, and that provision for raising revenue sufficient to defray the expenses of the state for each fiscal year shall be made by the Legislature by means other than borrowing money by issuing state bonds or promises for the state to pay the amount borrowed in the future, with interest, since, under section 6, art. 9, of the Constitution, state bonds can now be issued 'only for the purpose of repelling invasion or suppressing insurrection.' The spirit as well as the letter of this section should be preserved and given full force and effect. Its purpose should not be defeated or frittered away by any narrow or technical construction. The Constitution does not contemplate that state revenues may be anticipated or supplemented by money borrowed upon promises to pay in the future made for the state by a state agency. Where appropriations for state expenses may be made dependent upon future collections of revenue, the appropriations may be made available to pay such expenses when the collections are made.'

In the case of the State v. Board of Public Instruction for Indian River County (Fla.) reported in 125 So. 357, the court had under consideration chapter 14550, Acts of 1929, which was passed under the guise of a general law which applied only to counties having an assessed valuation on real and personal property not less than $4,538,710 and not more than $4,538,712, as shown by the assessment roll of said county prepared by the county tax assessor thereof for the year 1928 and approved by the board of county commissioners of said county. This act purported to authorize such county or counties to procure a loan of not exceeding $200,000 and to pay interest thereon at the rate of not exceeding 8 per cent. per annum for the purpose of paying salaries to teachers employed by the school board in the public free schools of such county, for the purpose of paying salaries of any other employees of said board, for the purpose of maintaining, repairing, furnishing, and/or equipping any of the public school buildings in such county, and for the purpose of paying all such legitimate expenses incurred in operating the public free schools of said such county, and it further purported to authorize such board of public instruction, in order to procure such loan, to issue and sell not exceeding $200,000 in principal amount of interest bearing time warrants to make provisions for sinking funds, etc. In the opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Whitfield the court say:

'If such enactment is not inoperative because it is in legal effect a local law enacted in violation of section 21, article 3, Constitution, as amended in 1...