City of Miami v. Lewis, 58-183
| Decision Date | 24 June 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 58-183,58-183 |
| Citation | 104 So.2d 70 |
| Parties | CITY OF MIAMI, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. Blanche T. LEWIS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
William L. Pallot, City Attorney, and James J. McVeigh, Asst. City Atty., Miami, for appellant.
Olavi M. Hendrickson, Miami, for appellee.
The appellant, City of Miami, seeks review of an order of the Civil Court of Record of Dade County requiring it to post bond to supersede a judgment on appeal in this court. The question raised by the motion is whether a municipal corporation is a political subdivision of the state within the meaning of § 59.14, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and therefore exempt from the requirement of posting supersedeas bond to stay the enforcement or execution of an adverse judgment. The answer to this question lies principally in the interpretation and application of the provisions of § 59.14, supra. This statute provides, inter alia:
'(1) When security not required.-When the state or any of its political subdivisions, or any officer, board, commission, or other public body of the state or any of its political subdivisions, in a purely official capacity, takes an appeal, the filing of the notice of appeal shall perfect the same and stay the execution or performance of the judgment, decree, or order appealed from, and no supersedeas bond need be given unless expressly required by the appellate court.
'(2) Appellate court may require bond.-The appellate court may, on motion for good cause shown, require a supersedeas bond or other security, in such amount, form and manner as it may prescribe as a condition for the further prosecution of the appeal.'
Section 59.14, supra, was revised in 1945 to include 'the state or any of its political subdivisions, in a purely official capacity * * *.' Prior to the revision, only constitutional officers of the state, boards of county commission and boards of public instruction of the various counties were exempt from furnishing supersedeas bond pending appeal. From a reading of the revised statute in comparison with its predecessor, it becomes apparent that the legislature intended to broaden the scope of the exemption to 'other public bodies of the state and any of its political subdivisions.' Section 1.01(10), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. (definitions) provides:
'The words 'public body', 'body politic' or 'political subdivision' include counties, cities, towns, villages, * * *.'
To the extent that governmental functions are discharged within a prescribed area and consistent with its grant of authority, a municipal corporation exercises the attributes of sovereignty and as such is a political subdivision or arm of the state. See Loeb v. City of Jacksonville, 101 Fla. 429, 134 So. 205, 207, 79 A.L.R. 459. The Constitution of Florida, § 1, Art. 8, F.S.A., specifically designates counties as political subdivisions of the state. Section 8, Art. 8, authorizes the legislature to establish municipalities. Therefore, we see that counties derive their status as political subdivisions of the state through constitutional designation whereas the cities or municipalities are creatures of the statutes. The fact that the latter is a creation by legislative enactment makes it nontheless, within its restricted orbit, as much a political subdivision of the state as the former. The parentage might be different but the general purpose of local government is the same. In City of Miami v. Rosen, 151 Fla. 677, 10 So.2d 307, 309, the Supreme Court said, in comparing counties and municipalities 'Municipalities in Florida are not subdivisions of the State as are counties.'
In comparison to the degree of sovereignty exercised, the counties exercise greater sovereignty than the municipalities. In turn, the state, as the sovereign, would exercise more governmental authority than the counties. If the legislature intended to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Witzenburger v. State ex rel. Wyoming Community Development Authority
...478 S.W.2d 323; Housing Authority of City of Woonsocket v. Fetzik, 1972, 110 R.I. 26, 110 R.I. 912, 289 A.2d 658; City of Miami v. Lewis, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 70; Bolen v. Board of Firemen, Policemen and Fire Alarm Operators' Trustees of San Antonio, Texas, Tex.Civ.App.1957, 308 S.W.2d 9......
-
Washington v. Brantley
...corporation exercises attributes of sovereignty, and as such is a political subdivision or arm of the state. City of Miami v. Lewis, 104 So.2d 70 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1958); Loeb v. City of Jacksonville, 101 Fla. 429, 134 So. 205 (1931). Therefore, this Court holds that there can be no liabilit......
-
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. Montgomery County
...Inc., 12 Ariz.App. 510, 472 P.2d 479, 483 (1970); City of Albuquerque v. Campbell, 68 N.M. 75, 358 P.2d 698 (1960); City of Miami v. Lewis, 104 So.2d 70 (Fla.App.1958). See Howard County Com'rs v. Matthews, 146 Md. 553, 561, 127 A. 118 (1924). Also, in 72 C.J.S. Political-Politics, at 223, ......
-
City of Albuquerque v. Campbell
...cities to be political subdivisions of states under various types of statutes and constitutional provisions. See City of Miami v. Lewis, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 70; Abbott v. City of Los Angeles, 50 Cal.2d 438, 326 P.2d 484; City of Norwalk v. Daniele, 143 Conn. 85, 119 A.2d 732; State v. C......