Dade County v. State

Decision Date14 March 1928
Citation116 So. 72,95 Fla. 465
PartiesDADE COUNTY v. STATE.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court
En Banc.

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.

Brown J., dissenting.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

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.

COUNSEL

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.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

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 Legislature shall provide for the election by the people or appointment by the Governor of all state and county officers not otherwise provided for by this Constitution, and fix by law their duties and compensation.' Section 27, art. 3, Const.
'The Legislature shall not create any office, the term of which shall be longer than four years.' Section 7, art. 16, Const.

The pertinent provisions of chapter 13088 are as follows:

'Section 1. It is hereby declared that an emergency exists which requires the immediate and adequate protection and improvement of the ocean front in Dade county, Florida, within the corporate limits of the city of Miami Beach; and the protection and improvement of the said ocean front of Dade county in said city is hereby declared to be a county purpose, and also to be a city purpose of the said city of Miami Beach, in said county and state.

'Sec. 2. Immediately upon this act becoming a law there shall be and is hereby created a commission to be known as the Dade County Ocean Front Protective Commission, and which commission shall be composed of five members, two of whom hereby named as representing Dade county shall be John C. Knight and J. E. Lummus, citizens of Miami in said county, and two of whom hereby named as representing the city of Miami Beach, shall be T. J. Pancoast and W. A. Kohlhepp, both of whom reside in the said city of Miami Beach, and the fifth member of said commission, who shall be chairman thereof, shall be chosen and appointed by the majority vote of the said four members herein named; provided, that should either or both of the members of the said commission herein named in behalf of the county of Dade, decline to act, die, resign or remove from said county of Dade, then the board of county commissioners of said county shall appoint and designate some suitable person or persons to take the place of such member or members, and likewise, should either or both of the members of the said commission herein named on behalf of the said city of Miami Beach, decline to act, die, resign or remove from said county of Dade, then the city council of said city of Miami Beach shall appoint and designate some suitable person or persons to take the place of such member or members. The members of said commission, except the chairman, shall serve without pay, and shall continue to hold their respective offices until the work contemplated by this bill shall have been completed; provided, the members herein named in behalf of the county of Dade and their successors as such, if any, shall be subject to removal by the board of county commissioners of said county for malfeasance or misfeasance in office, and their successors shall be appointed as above indicated, and likewise the members herein named in behalf of the city of Miami Beach, and their successors as such, if any, shall be subject to removal by the said city council of Miami Beach for malfeasance or misfeasance in office, and their successors shall be appointed as above indicated. The chairman of the said commission shall be allowed such salary and perform such duties as said commission shall fix and prescribe and shall retain his position as such and serve as a member of the said commission until the said work contemplated by this act shall have been completed; provided, he may be removed from office as such chairman, and as a member of said commission, by the unanimous vote of the other four members thereof, for any malfeasance or misfeasance in office which, in the judgment of said other four members, shall constitute just cause for such removal, and his successor as such member and as chairman of said commission, shall be chosen by a majority vote of the other four members of said commission; provided, in all cases, if a majority of the said four members of said commission named herein, or their successors, shall be unable to agree on said chairman, he shall be named and designated by the judges of the circuit court of the Eleventh judicial circuit of said state.

'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.'

'See. 11. That immediately upon the selection of the four members of said...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • West v. Town of Lake Placid
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • February 6, 1929
    ... ... 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.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • August 23, 1933
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • December 5, 1938
    ...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
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 19, 1933
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT