Charlotte County v. Chadwick

• Decision Date: 24 June 1931
• Citation: 135 So. 502,102 Fla. 163
• Parties: CHARLOTTE COUNTY v. CHADWICK et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

135 So. 502

102 Fla. 163

CHARLOTTE COUNTY v. CHADWICK et al.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

June 24, 1931

Error to Circuit Court, Charlotte County; George W. Whitehurst Judge.

Action by Clay Chadwick and others against Charlotte County. To review an order granting a new trial at law, defendant brings error.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

COUNSEL

Thomas W. Butler, of Punta Gorda, and W. D. Bell, of Arcadia, for plaintiff in error.

Leitner & Leitner, of Arcadia, for defendants in error.

OPINION

DAVIS J.

This is a writ of error taken to an order of the circuit court of Charlotte county granting a new trial at law. Section 4615 Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, section 2905, Rev. Gen. St. 1920. The defendants in error were plaintiffs in the court below in a suit brought by them to recover from Charlotte county the sum of $18,512.38 as compensation for having handled $1,831,238.44 as bond trustees for Charlotte county under chapter 10409, Special Acts of 1925, Laws of Florida, considered in connection with sections 1544 to 1549, both inclusive, Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920. At the trial, verdict was returned for the defendants, and, upon motion of the plaintiffs, the new trial complained of was granted.

In the case of Jackson Bros. Lbr. Co. v. Yaeger & McCaskill, 80 Fla. 611, 86 So. 500, this court held, with regard to writs of error from orders granting new trials at law, as follows: 'Where the verdict is a proper one on a fair consideration of all the evidence, and no rule of law or procedure has been violated to the material injury of either party, a new trial should not be granted.' An order granting a new trial in that case was reversed on the principle stated.

In this case, it appears that under chapter 10409, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1925, the county commissioners of Charlotte county, Fla., in their corporate capacity, were authorized to issue bonds of said county to an amount not exceeding $2,000,000 in addition to the bonds then outstanding. One section of that act reads as follows: 'Trustees shall be appointed for said bonds and they shall exercise the powers and perform the duties in regard thereto as are prescribed in Sections 1544 to 1549, both inclusive, of the General Statutes of the State of Florida.' Section 5.

Sections 1544 to 1549, both inclusive, Rev. Gen. St. 1920 (sections 2322-2327, Comp. Gen. Laws 1927), provide that when the county commissioners shall have issued bonds they shall appoint, by resolution of their board, to be recorded in the minutes, a financial committee of three persons who shall be resident freeholders of the county, to be styled 'Trustees of County Bonds,' and who shall perform certain duties prescribed in the statutes, with reference to the receipt and disbursement of moneys as such trustees. For the services performed in such connection, compensation is provided as follows: 'For receiving the first ten thousand dollars, one and one-half per cent.; for all over ten thousand dollars, one-half of one per cent.; for disbursements, the same as allowed for receiving, to be paid out of the county treasury.' Section 1549, Rev. Gen. St. 1920, section 2327, Comp. Gen. Laws 1927.

For the purpose of disposing of this case, we may take it for granted that the effect of section 5 of chapter 10409, Special Acts of 1925, is to make section 1549, Rev. Gen. St. 1920 (section 2327, Comp. Gen. Laws 1927) a part of the special act by reference, as much as would be the case with reference to the other designated sections of the Revised General Statutes which are referred to in said section 5.

This being true, it remains to be decided as to whether or not there is anything in the statute prescribing the compensation of bond trustees, which authorizes such bond trustees to recover a judgment against the county for unpaid compensation as such trustees, conceding that they sufficiently establish their right to such compensation.

The bond trustees provided for by statute are not county officers, because they are not appointed by the Governor, nor elected by the people, nor do they perform such functions as would make them officers, in view of that term as it has been defined by this court. See Suburban Inv Co. v. Hyde, 61 Fla. 809, 55 So. 76. There is, therefore, no constitutional requirement that the compensation...