Clein v. Lee
| Citation | 200 So. 693,146 Fla. 306 |
| Parties | CLEIN v. LEE, City Manager, et al. |
| Decision Date | 25 February 1941 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Error to Circuir Court, Dade County; Ross Williams, Judge.
Proceeding in mandamus by R. Clein against L. L. Lee, City Manager of the City of Miami, and others, to require the respondents to remove plaintiff's garbage from his premises. To review a judgment dismissing the proceeding, the plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
COUNSEL A. C. Franks, of Miami, for plaintiff in error.
Lewis Twyman and J. W. Watson, Jr., both of Miami, for defendants in error.
This writ of error is to a final judgment dismissing a proceeding in mandamus. The proceeding was instituted by the plaintiff in error to require the City of Miami to remove his garbage from the premises, he being a resident of the City.
The record discloses that the City of Miami enacted Ordinance No 2164 defining the term garbage and imposing a charge of four dollars per annum on each family for its removal. Plaintiff refused to pay the charge, the City refused to move the garbage, so he brings this action to coerce performance on the theory that the public health of the City requires it to remove all garbage.
It is shown that the City was authorized to enact the ordinance that it was regularly enacted, and that plaintiff had not complied with its terms. In our view, the trial court was correct in dismissing the cause. The charge is not shown to be unreasonable and it is shown that 30,000 families in the City had complied with it.
It is quite true that the ordinance was a police measure and that the City is charged with the duty of protecting the health and sanitation of its people but it cannot perform this and the other services it is called on to perform without means to do so. A charge of four dollars for the service is reasonable and since plaintiff refused to pay it, he had no ground for complaint.
A governmental entity can no more perform a public service without means to do so than the head of the family can increase gadgets to enlarge the convenience and comfort of the home and office without means for the purpose. The means may be raised by a direct or some other species of tax, but it must be extracted from the people and should be spread to require all who enjoy the service to aid in bearing the burden. In a democracy like ours where all enjoy the fruit of good government, it is a false...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Gainesville v. STATE, DOT
...municipal services fails to pay what is billed, the burden falls on other utility users to make up the difference. See Clein v. Lee, 146 Fla. 306, 200 So. 693, 694 (1941) ("He who enjoys the benefit without participating in the burden does so at the expense of those who 5. For purposes of p......
-
State v. City of Miami
...Hutchinson v. City of Valdosta, 227 U.S. 303, 33 S.Ct. 209, 57 L.Ed. 520, and cases there cited. In this connection see also Clein v. Lee, 146 Fla. 306, 200 So. 693. It is contended Question 5 that the provision of Ordinance No. 3053, supra, violates Sec. 655.27, Fla.Statutes 1941, same F.S......
-
State v. City of St. Petersburg
...Chapter 167.73, Florida Statutes, 1951, F.S.A. We have many times upheld charges and fees of the character here involved. Clein v. Lee, 146 Fla. 306, 200 So. 693; State v. City of Daytona Beach, 160 Fla. 204, 34 So.2d 309; Buchanan v. City of Miami, Fla., 49 So.2d 336; State v. City of Miam......
-
United Sanitation Services of Hillsborough, Inc. v. City of Tampa
...subdivisions, even if such a decision results in the complete preclusion of private facilities for the same use. See Clein v. Lee, 146 Fla. 306, 200 So. 693 (1941); City of Jacksonville v. Nichols Engineering & Research Corp., Fla.1950, 49 So.2d 529; Annotation, Garbage Removal Services-Reg......