Egan v. City of Miami

• Decision Date: 05 January 1938
• Citation: 130 Fla. 465,178 So. 132
• Parties: EGAN et al. v. CITY OF MIAMI et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

178 So. 132

130 Fla. 465

EGAN et al. v. CITY OF MIAMI et al.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

January 5, 1938

Suit by E. L. Egan, operating under the trade name of the Magic City Tourist Camp, and others, to restrain the City of Miami Fla., a municipal corporation, and others, from enforcing an ordinance regulating, among other things, tourist camps, tent cities, and trailer parks. From a judgment dismissing the bill of complaint, the plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County Jefferson B. Browne, judge.

COUNSEL

Boone &amp Boone, of Miami, for appellants.

J. W Watson, Jr., of Miami, for appellees.

OPINION

TERRELL Justice.

The appellants as complainants filed their bill of complaint in the circuit court asking to restrain the City fo Miami from enforcing ordinance No. 1617, regulating, among other things, tourist camps, tent cities, and trailer parks. A motion to dismiss the bill of complaint was granted and the instant appeal was prosecuted from that order.

It is first contended that the city was without authority to enact ordinance No. 1617, that the power to regulate tourist camps, tent cities, and trailer camps was vested under the law exclusively in the Hotel Commission and the State Board of Health, both of which had imposed every needed regulation on them.

This question appears to have been answered contrary to the contention of appellant in Miller v. Quigg, 87 Fla. 462, 100 So. 270, where a similar question involving a similar charter was under consideration. Further discussion of it would therefore seem unnecessary.

It is not out of place to state however that we do not understand that the general law, Comp.Gen.Laws 1927, § 4144, empowering the State Board of Health and the Hotel Commission to impose health and sanitary regulations on appellants deprives the municipalities of power to supplement the regulations so imposed within their jurisdiction. State v. City of Miami, 101 Fla. 292, 134 So. 608; City of Apalachicola v. State, 93 Fla. 921, 112 So. 618; Sanders v. Howell, 73 Fla. 563, 74 So. 802.

The City of Miami having power to enact the ordinance brought in question, the next question with which we are confronted is whether or not it has exercised that power in a valid and constitutional manner.

An examination of the record and the applicable law discloses that in its zoning and other ordinances for the preservation of the health of the city, it has included 23 sections or regulations, 14 of which are the identical regulations enforced by the Hotel Commission and, as we understand, are not complained of. The additional regulations imposed by the city have to do with construction of cottages, their distance apart, drainage, toilets, baths, lighting, ventilation, and other requirements essential to the health and sanitary living conditions of the inhabitants of the city. We do not find them arbitrary or unreasonable and the power of the City of Miami to promulgate and enforce such regulations has been repeatedly upheld. State ex rel. Henry v. City of Miami, 117 Fla. 594, 158 So. 82; State ex rel. Skillman v. City of Miami, 101 Fla. 585, 134 So. 541.

The order dismissing the bill of complaint may also be affirmed on the theory...