Dade County v. State
Decision Date | 14 March 1928 |
Citation | 116 So. 72,95 Fla. 465 |
Parties | DADE COUNTY v. STATE. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Proceeding by Dade County, opposed by the State, to validate a bond issue. From an order denying validation of the bonds, the County appeals.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Constitution does not contemplate essential governmental power or authority may be exercised by corporate agency whose members are not duly commissioned officers. The Constitution does not contemplate that essential governmental power or authority may be exercised by a corporate agency whose members are not duly commissioned officers.
'Employment' does not authorize exercising in one's own right sovereign power of prescribed independent authority of governmental nature. An employment does not authorize the exercise in one's own right of any sovereign power or any prescribed independent authority of a governmental nature and this constitutes perhaps the most decisive difference between an employment and an office, and between an employee and an officer.
Duties of officer as distinguished from employment are continuous in nature and defined by rules prescribed by government; duties of officer consist of exercise of important public powers trusts, or duties as part of administration of government duties remaining though incumbent dies or is changed; duties of public office remain though incumbent dies or is changed. The duties of an officer, as distinguished from an employment, are continuous in their nature and are defined by rules prescribed by government and not by contract, consisting of the exercise of important public powers, trusts, or duties as a part of the administration of the government, the duties remaining though the incumbent dies or is changed.
Every 'office,' in constitutional meaning of term, implies authority for exercise of some portion of sovereign power in making, executing, or administering law. Every 'office,' in the constitutional meaning of the term, implies authority for the exercise of some portion of sovereign power either in making, executing, or administering the law.
When not otherwise provided in Constitution, executive and administrative governmental functions of state and counties must be performed by officers elected by people or appointed by Governor; when not otherwise provided in Constitution, duties and compensation of officers performing executive and administrative governmental functions shall be fixed by law (Const. art. 3,§ 27). Section 27, art. 3, of the state Constitution, means that when not otherwise provided in the Constitution the executive and administrative governmental functions of the state and counties shall be performed by officers who shall be elected by the people or appointed by the Governor, and that the duties and compensation of such officers shall be fixed by law.
Administrative functions, governmental in nature, involving discretion and responsibility, and not merely clerical or expert assistance, are to be performed by duly commissioned officers (Const. art. 3, § 27). The Constitution contemplates that administrative functions that are governmental in their nature involving discretion and responsibility, and not merely clerical or expert assistance, shall be performed by duly commissioned officers.
Statute attempting to give nonofficial corporate body authority to designate depositories of county funds and other authority held invalid (Acts 1927, c. 13088; Const. art. 3, § 27). Chapter 13088, Acts of 1927, violates section 27, article 3, of the state Constitution in attempting to authorize the Dade County Ocean Front Protection Commission, a nonofficial corporate body, to designate depositories of county funds, to have the deciding vote in adopting or changing plans and estimates for a public improvement in the event of a disagreement between the county commissioners and city council, to receive and disburse county funds, etc., and the statute is inoperative in essential particulars.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Paul D. Barns, Judge.
A. B. & C. C. Small and Price, Price, Neeley & Kehoe, all or Miami, for appellant.
Vernon Hawthorne, State's Atty., and R. H. Hunt, Asst. State's Atty., both of Miami, for the State.
In proceedings brought by the county under the statute to validate bonds proposed to be issued by Dade county pursuant to chapter 13088, Acts of 1927, an answer by the state attorney challenged the validity of the statute upon grounds that it violates section 27, article 3, section 7, article 16, of the state Constitution as well as upon other grounds not necessary to be stated. The court held the act to be unconstitutional and denied validation of the bonds. The county appealed.
The Constitution contains the following:
The pertinent provisions of chapter 13088 are as follows:
'The four members of said commission hereby appointed shall be allowed, from time to time, their expenses necessarily incurred in carrying out and performing the duties imposed upon them by this act.
'It shall be the duty of said commission immediately to make or cause to be made a survey of the ocean front of Dade county, lying within the territorial limits of Miami Beach, north of Norris Cut, with reference to the proper means and methods of protecting and improving the same as hereinafter more specifically provided for; and the said commission shall have power and authority to employ competent engineers and other assistants for such purpose and incur such reasonable expenses connected therewith, as may, from time to time, be assented to or approved by the said board of county commissioners and the said city council.'
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
West v. Town of Lake Placid
... ... Existence ... of de facto municipality can be challenged only by state in ... direct proceeding, and it may continue to exercise its ... functions until judgment of ... [120 So. 363] ... [97 ... Fla. 130] Appeal from Circuit Court, Highlands County; W. J ... Barker, judge ... COUNSEL ... W. D ... Bell, of Arcadia, for ... Nor was the corporate existence ... of the county in question in Dade County v. State ... (Fla.) 116 So. 72. The Bonding Act there involved failed ... because the ... ...
-
State v. Truman, 32761.
...929, n. 6 (b), such as Commonwealth v. Evans, 74 Pa. 124; State ex rel. Swearingen v. Jones, 79 Fla. 56, 84 So. 84; and Dade County v. State, 95 Fla. 465, 116 So. 72. In the Pennsylvania case under a legislative resolution Evans was appointed by the Governor who issued and delivered to him ......
-
Hazen v. National Rifle Ass'n of America
...inclusion for purposes of Workmen's Compensation Act); Massolini v. Driscoll, 114 Conn. 546, 159 A. 480 (idem). 23 See Dade County v. State, 95 Fla. 465, 116 So. 72; State of North Carolina ex rel. Harris v. Watson, 201 N.C. 661, 161 S.E. 215, 79 A.L.R. 441; Moxon v. State ex rel. Binyon, 3......
-
State ex rel. Pickett v. Truman
...note 6 (b), such as Commonwealth v. Evans, 74 Pa. St. 124; State ex rel. Swearingen v. Jones, 79 Fla. 56, 84 So. 84; and Dade County v. State (Fla.), 116 So. 72. In Pennsylvania case under a legislative resolution Evans was appointed by the Governor who issued and delivered to him an offici......