Chavous v. Goodbred
| Decision Date | 29 April 1947 |
| Parties | CHAVOUS v. GOODBRED. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dixie County; R. H. Rowe Judge.
W. P Chavous, of Cross City, for appellant.
J. L Blackwell, of Live Oak, for appellee.
Upon this appeal we review a decree on final hearing dismissing a bill in equity. Previously we held the bill good. Chavous v Goodbread, 156 Fla. 599, 23 So.2d 761. Thereafter an answer was filed and testimony taken and upon final hearing the bill was dismissed.
The first question is whether the required notice of local legislation under Article III, Section 21, Florida Constitution and Section 11.02, Fla.Stat.1941, F.S.A., must be published in a newspaper and not by posting where there is a newspaper published in the county.
The statute is in the disjunctive, hence the notice may be given by either method; consequently the notice in this case was duly given. We will pass upon the sufficiency of the substance under another question. Section 11.03, Fla.Stat.1941, F.S.A., imports no binding effect because it is suggestive only in so far as the form of the proof of publication is set forth.
Next we consider the sufficiency of the notice from the standpoint of substance. A brief history of our law on this question may be helpful. The original Section 21 of Article III of the Constitution of 1885 required that notice necessary for local or special legislation should '* * * state the substance of the contemplated law * * *.' This provision, in substance, was retained when the section was amended in 1928. In 1938 this section was again amended to require the notice to be published as required by law. Thereupon Section 11.02, Fla.Stat., 1941, F.S.A., was enacted pursuant to the Constitution requiring the substance of the proposed act to be stated.
We have ample authority from this court in cases decided subsequent to effective date of the present amendment and statute to rest the decision of this case. State v. Crooks, 153 Fla. 694, 15 So.2d 675, and Hatfield v. Prince, 156 Fla. 411, 23 So.2d 481. Upon authority of these cases the decree is affirmed.
This is the second appearance of this case here. See Chavous v. Goodbread, 156 Fla. 599, 23 So.2d 761. At the time that opinion was rendered we had before us the question of whether of not the attack upon the validity of the Act, being Chapter 22241, Special Acts of 1943, could be made as it was in this case by bill in chancery. We held that it could.
On the going down of the mandate the appellee filed answer to the amended bill of complaint and the appellant filed motion to strike the answer. Thereupon a stipulation was filed. The stipulation was as follows:
'That Chapter 22241, Senate Bill No. 483, Acts of 1943, was not proposed by a Charter Board.
'That Chapter 22241, Senate Bill No. 483, Acts of 1943, was passed as a local bill, but no notice of intention to apply therefor was published in a newspaper, although at the time required for such notice to be published there was a duly qualified newspaper being published in Dixie County, Florida, of general circulation, viz.: The Dixie County Advocate, which had been entered as second class mail matter at the Post Office in Cross City, Florida, for more than 15 years.
'That a notice was posted of the intention to apply for the passage of said Chapter 22241, Senate Bill No. 483, Acts of 1943, as shown by a copy of the notice attached to defendant's answer, and marked exhibit 'a', and that an affidavit as to the posting of the said notice was also made as shown by a copy thereof attached to defendant's answer and also marked exhibit 'A'.
'That Exhibit 'a' attached to the defendant's answer, shows a complete record of the introduction and passing of said Chapter 22241, Senate Bill No. 483, Acts of 1943.'
On final hearing the Chancellor entered his order holding the notice and proof of publication of notice to be sufficient and dismissed the bill at the cost of the plaintiff.
The record shows that the notice which was published by posting the same at 6 places within the town of Cross City, one of which places was at the court house, was as follows:
'Notice is hereby given that there will be introduced a bill during the 1943 session of the Florida Legislature to abolish the present Municipal Government of the Town of Cross City, Florida, and to provide for the establishment of a Municipal Government for the Town of Cross City, Florida, providing for officers of said Town, their duties and powers, the territory embraced within said Municipality, and by setting out therein all the powers and duties usually applicable to Incorporated Cities and Towns.
'This Notice to be published for at least thirty days before said Bill is to be introduced, by posting this Notice in at least six public places within the said town.
'This Notice is hereby posted in a public place in said Town on this the 20th day of March, A.D. 1943.
'Signed
'J. S. Bodifoed.'
It is not necessary for us to discuss any question presented except the sufficiency of the notice.
Section 21 of Article III of the Constitution provides that 'no local or special bill shall be passed, nor shall any local or special law establishing or abolishing municipalities, or providing for their government, jurisdiction and powers * * * unless notice of intention to apply therefor shall have been published in the manner provided by law where the matter or thing to be affected may be situated', and Section 11.02, Fla.Statutes 1941, same F.S.A., is as follows:
'Notice of special or local legislation
We hold that the notice published here was not sufficient to advise the public of the substance of the contemplated law.
The facts in this case are not greatly unlike those involved in the case of In re Opinion of the Justices by the Alabama Supreme Court, 246 Ala. 518, 21 So.2d 238. In Alabama that part of the Constitution providing for the publication of local laws is as follows:
'No * * * local law shall be passed * * * unless notice of the intention to apply therefor shall have been published, without cost to the state, in the county or counties where the matter or thing to be affected may be situated, which notice shall state the substance of the proposed law * * *' Const.Ala.1901, § 106.
And the Court held:
'Where act creating board of revenue for Jackson county fixed compensation of members of board in such manner that increase in salary might result, failure of published notice of intention to apply for the introduction of the bill to give information regarding the change, which involved a matter of substance, rendered the notice defective and the act unconstitutional.'
In State ex rel. Landis et al. v. Reardon, et al., 114 Fla. 755, 154 So. 868, 869, we said:
'A purpose of the quoted organic provision is to require notice of the substance of a proposed local or special law to be duly published in the locality to be affected thereby, so that interested parties be not misled by an inadequate notice, but may be duly notified of the nature and substance of the local or special bill to be introduced in the Legislature; but there is no organic purpose to curtail the law-making power and responsibility of Legislature to determine the contents of its enactments further than is reasonably necessary to secure to those who are directly interested therein due notice of the substance of a proposed local or special law, so that its enactment or the essential substance of the contents thereof may be contested if that is desired.
'The inhabitants of the local communities and those directly interested in the premises have a constitutional right to have duly published in the locality to be affected the substance of a proposed local or special law, so that they may be duly notified of its general nature and purpose.'
And again in that opinion we said:
'To be a compliance with the abovequoted organic provision, the published notice should state the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barndollar v. Sunset Realty Corp., 57932
...general language was held to constitute sufficient notice. City of Hialeah v. Pfaffendorf, 90 So.2d 596 (Fla.1956); Chavous v. Goodbred, 158 Fla. 826, 30 So.2d 370 (1947) (notice set out in dissenting opinion). These cases are inapposite. Both related to referenda on municipal charters. The......
- Beasley v. State
-
City of Hialeah v. Pfaffendorf
...(now appearing as Ch. 30807, supra) is directly controlled and determined by the decision of this Court in the case of Chavous v. Goodbred, 158 Fla. 826, 30 So.2d 370. The notice under attack in that case appears in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Buford. The notice which we are conce......