Earle v. Dade County

• Decision Date: 29 July 1926
• Citation: 109 So. 331,92 Fla. 432
• Parties: EARLE v. DADE COUNTY.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

109 So. 331

92 Fla. 432

EARLE v. DADE COUNTY.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

July 29, 1926

Proceeding under Rev. Gen. St. § 3296 et seq., to validate an issue of bonds by Dade County, in which George H. Earle, Jr. intervened. From a decree validating the bonds, the intervener appeals.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Under the provisions of chapter 9418 of Acts of 1923, no limitation is placed upon the amount of the tax which the board of county commissioners are authorized to levy to pay the principal and interest of bonds issued under section 3 of said act.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; H. F Atkinson, judge.

COUNSEL

Evans &amp Mershon, of Miami, for appellant.

A. B. & C. C. Small, of Miami, for appellee.

OPINION

BROWN C.J.

This is a proceeding brought under section 3296 et seq. of the Revised General Statutes for the validation of an issue of bonds by the county of Dade for the purpose of erecting public fair buildings in said county by authority of a special act of the Legislature (chapter 9418 of the Acts of 1923). Plaintiff in error intervened in said proceedings, and from the final decree validating said bonds has taken this appeal.

Only two questions are presented and argued: (1) Whether, under said special act, the board of county commissioners could issue and sell bonds for the purposes stated in the act in such amounts that the tax necessary to be levied for the retirement and payment of interest on said bonds would at any time exceed two mills on the dollar of the taxable property within the county; (2) whether the purpose for which the bonds were issued was a county purpose, as to which the Legislature could authorize the county to act.

It not having been made to appear that the amount of the proposed bond issue, $100,000, was so large that the tax which would have to be levied for the payment of the principal and interest of such bonds would exceed the two mills provided by the act, it is doubtful if any basis has been laid for the proper presentation of the first question, even if it be admitted that the provision of the act with regard to the two-mill tax has referenct to retirement of the bond issue. But, in view of its importance, we will review the question briefly.

Section 1 of the act authorizes the acquirement and holding or real property within the county for fair and fairground purposes, and for the erection and construction upon such property for such purposes of building and other structures necessary or desirable, for the purpose inter alia of conducting fairs and agricultural exhibitions for the furthering and enhancement of the agricultural interests of said county. (Italics ours.)

Section 2 gives the board of county commissioners the power to levy upon all property, real and personal, subject to taxation in Dade county, an annual tax,in addition to all other taxes, not to exceed two mills on the dollar, for the purposes of and to be expended in the carrying out 'of the foregoing provisions.' (Italics ours.)

Section 3 authorizes said board to issue and sell from time to time bonds of the county for the purpose of raising the necessary funds for the carrying out of the provisions of this act, provided such issue shall be approved by a majority of the qualified voters of the county voting at an election to be held for that purpose, and then follows this language:

'And it shall be the duty of the said board of county commissioners, from time to time, upon the issue of any such bonds, to levy and cause to be collected a tax upon all the taxable property in said county of Dade,sufficient to pay the interest upon the same as it shall become due, and to pay the annual installments of such bonds from year to year as they mature.' (Italics ours.)

Section 4 provides that the board shall not expend moneys nor incur indebtedness in the operation or conduct of such fair and fairgrounds aggregating in any one year a sum in excess of the amount which may be raised during such year by the two-mill tax.

It appears from this summary of the act that no limit is placed upon the millage which it may be necessary to levy to pay the principal and interest of the bonds. The language of section 3 is clear ans unequivocal, and leads to no other conclusion. The limitation of taxation to two mills on the dollar, in section 2, evidently refers to the purposes incorporated in section 1, and section 4 seems to have been added to make it clear that the two-mill tax limit should apply also to the expense of operation of such fair and fairgrounds. But when it comes to providing for the levy of taxes to take care of the bonds issued under section 3, it seems to have been the intent of the act that the board of county commissioners should have the power to levy whatever amount might be required in order to be 'sufficient' to pay off the principal and interest of such bonds. The people are given the power at the polls to limit the amount of the bond issue as they see fit, but it was evidently the purpose of the act not to fetter or limit the county commissioners in discharging the duty of levying such tax as might be necessary to pay the debt so authorized.

As to the second question, whether the purpose for which the bonds were issued is a county purpose under section 5, art. 9, of the Constitution, counsel for both parties confess themselves unable to cite any Florida case directly in point. Counties in this state have been authorized under general and special statutes to levy taxes and issue bonds for the erection of courthouses, jails, armories, poorhouses, and other similar essential county buildings, and to deepen the channels and improve the port facilities of navigable waters lying within or adjacent to the boundaries of such counties, to build bridges, construct roads, and aid in the construction of state highways located within the county. See Lewis v. Leon County (Fla.) 107 So. 146, and cases cited on pages 153, 154. But these cases as to necessary public buildings and highways deal with what may well be deemed public necessities.

While it might be said that our Constitution gives the Legislature broader powers with reference to municipalities than exists with reference to counties, and that what might be allowable as a municipal purpose might not necessarily be allowable as a county purpose, it is at least permissible to refer to instances of the granting and exercise of powers by municipalities which have been held to be legitimate municipal purposes. In this state it has been held that a statute, authorizing a city to raise funds by taxation for the maintenance of a public library, is a municipal purpose within the meaning of our constitutional provision. Tampa v. Prince, 63 Fla. 387, 58 So. 542. We also have a general statute authorizing cities and towns to establish and maintain free public libraries and reading rooms. In the case of City of Bradenton v. State (Fla.) 102 So. 556, 36 A. L. R. 1297, it was intimated that the Legislature might authorize a municipality to establish and maintain a public golf course, but that the authority so to do would not be implied from the general powers vested in the city. The decisions of other states have recognized donations by municipalities to colleges, industrial expositions, and firemen's relief associations, and that municipalities have power to erect public market houses, auditoriums amusement pavilious and parks, and halls for public assemblies. 3 McQuillin, Munic. Corp. 2476 to 2479. But the power of a city to erect an opera house has been denied. Brooks v. Brooklyn, 146 Iowa, 136, 124 N.W. 868, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 425. Under the power to maintain and improve public parks, cities have been allowed to construct and operate in connection therewith zoological gardens and pavilions for public amusement and convenience. It is a matter of common knowledge that it has long been the custom for private associations to organize and hold county fairs in many of the counties of the agricultural sections of this country, and to acquire property and construct buildings for such purpose, and, in addition to exhibitions of farm products and the offering of prizes therefor, to promote the success of the enterprise by amusement and other attractions in connection therewith. The effect of these fairs has no doubt been to stimulate an interest in improved agricultural methods. It may also be true that the public benefits to be derived from such fairs are sufficient to authorize the Legislature to place the expense thereof upon the public rather than upon a few individuals who have the public spirit to promote and organize such enterprises. As to this feature of the act in question, though somewhat paternalistic in its nature, we are not prepared to say that the Legislature has...