Getzen v. Sumter County
| Decision Date | 02 February 1925 |
| Citation | 103 So. 104,89 Fla. 45 |
| Parties | GETZEN et al. v. SUMTER COUNTY. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
En Banc.
Proceeding to validate proposed issue of county bonds by County Commissioners of Sumter County. From the decree, J. C. Getzen and others, intervening taxpayers, appeal.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Taxing power to be exercised only as authorized by controlling law for appropriate public purpose. The intent of the Constitution is that the taxing power shall be exercised only as authorized by controlling law for an appropriate public purpose, and only to the extent that a proper public purpose may be accomplished without violating property rights of the taxpayers.
Organic or statutory law does not intend abuse or arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of power conferred by it; Constitution requires courts to give remedy for injury caused by arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of authority conferred. An abuse, or an arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of a power conferred by law is not within the intendments of the law, organic or statutory, and the Constitution requires the courts to give a 'remedy' 'for any injury done' to personal or property rights, which includes an injury caused by an arbitrary or an unreasonable exercise of authority conferred as well as by action taken without any authority whatever.
Right to tax is limited to appropriate public purposes, how nature and extent of tax levy or action involving or necessitating tax levy should be determined, stated. The right to exercise the power of taxation is limited to appropriate public purposes, and, when not controlled by a prescribed rule, the nature and extent of a tax levy, or of any action taken involving or necessitating a tax levy, should be determined by a due consideration of controlling provisions and principles of law, and of the organic property rights of the taxpayers, as well as of the reasonable requirements of the public welfare.
Rights to protect property and to obtain redress for injury apply to tax levies by administrative officers. The organic rights to protect property and to obtain redress for injuries are secured against abuses in the exercise of authority involving tax levies by administrative officers, as well as against abuse by the Legislature.
Intent of organic or statutory provisions may be shown by implications and intendments; implied provisions of law are effective when judicially declared to exist. Intent of organic or statutory provisions is the essence of the law and such intent may be shown by the implications and intendments, as well as by the words of express provisions and implied provisions of organic or statutory law are as effective as the express provisions, when such implied provisions are judicially declared to exist.
How amount of bonds required for authorized county purpose shall be determined, stated. In providing that the county commissioners 'shall determine' 'what amount of bonds is required' for an authorized county purpose, the intent of the statute is that such determination shall be controlled by applicable provisions and principles of law, so that the action taken shall not be arbitrary, but shall be reasonable as it affects property rights secured by the Constitution.
Action of administrative officers is subject to judicial review particularly where authority is conferred in general terms. Action taken by administrative officers must be both legal and reasonable, and such action is subject to judicial review. This is particularly so where the authority to act is conferred in general terms.
Action pursuant to statute must accord with its provisions, and must not conflict with organic law. Action taken pursuant to a statute must accord with the provisions of the statute, and must not conflict with the requirements of organic law.
Material disregard of statutory intent is violation of substance of statute. The intent of a statute is the gist of the enactment, and a material disregard of the statutory intent is a violation of the substance of the enactment.
Intent of statute authorizing administrative functions to be performed by officials should be observed in substance; legality and reasonableness of administrative action under statute are subject to judicial review. Where a statute merely authorizes an administrative function to be performed by officials, the statutory intent should be observed in substance, and the legality and reasonableness of the action taken under the statute are subject to judicial review.
Statute does not contemplate unreasonable exercise of authority conferred, particularly when taxing power and property and personal rights are involved. A statute does not contemplate an unreasonable exercise of authority conferred by it, particularly when the taxing power and material property and personal rights are involved.
Statute authorizing county commissioners to determine amount of bonds required for county purpose does not authorize issue of unreasonable amount. While the statute authorizes the county commissioners to 'determine' 'what amount of bonds is required' for a county purpose, and does not expressly limit the amount of bonds that may be issued by a county for any or all county purposes, yet the statute, by necessary intendment, does not authorize the issue of an amount of county bonds that would be unreasonable, with reference to the organic property rights of taxpayers, and to the just requirements of the public purpose contemplated.
When right of taxpayers to judicial relief against unreasonable taxation not prevented, stated. The right of a taxpayer to relief in the courts, from an anticipated injury to his organic property rights by an unreasonable exercise of the taxing power given for a public purpose, is not affected, even though the exercise of the power within reasonable limitations would afford no justiciable rights to a taxpayer, and even though the action taken has been approved by a majority of the electorate.
Large areas, small population, and low valuations will not justify excessive bond issue involving abuse of taxing power. Large areas, small population, and low valuations may warrant a policy of liberal bond issues for constructing hard surface roads, as essential in developing the varied and extensive resources of a county, but such conditions and policy will not justify an excessive bond issue involving an abuse of the taxing power, even though the bond issue be approved by a majority of the electorate; for the minority have rights secured to them by the Constitution and by the intendments of the statutes authorizing bond issues.
Constitution does not contemplate or permit abuse of taxing power; intent of statute authorizing issue of county bonds to construct hard surface road stated. The Constitution does not contemplate or permit an abuse of the taxing power, and the intent of the statute, which is the essence of the law, is that bonds shall be issued only in such amounts as the public purpose reasonably requires, with due regard to the organic rights of taxpayers to protect their property from any arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of governmental authority.
Matters considered in reviewing administrative discretion of officials, stated. In reviewing the administrative discretion of officials, the court should give due consideration to the matters that were or should have been considered by the officials in exercising the discretionary authority that is being reviewed.
Bond issue of $650,000 by county to construct hard surface highways held not abuse of discretion of county commissioners. As the law prescribes no definite limit to the amount of bonds a county may issue, and as the needs and demands of the people of the county, and other conditions and circumstances, and the reasonable anticipations based on facts and experience, and not on mere conjecture, that should have guided the county commissioners in determining the 'amount of bonds' that it is 'expedient or to the best interests of the county' to issue for the designated purpose, may reasonably justify the proposed bond issue, it is, on the showing made, as to abuse of discretion by the county commissioners, not clear to this court, as against the decree made by the resident circuit judge, that the county commissioners committed an abuse of authority and discretion fixing the amount of this bond issue, which has been approved by a majority of the freeholder electors of the county.
Statutes authorizing county's tax levy for roads, and tax for interest and sinking fund of county bonds, may operate together in county. Chapter 9174, Acts of 1923, authorizing a county tax levy for roads, and section 1543, Revised General Statutes of 1920, requiring the county commissioners to levy a sufficient tax for interest and sinking fund of county bonds, may operate together in a county.
In absence of abuse of authority or illegality in issue of bonds, statutory authority to levy tax is controlling. Where no illegality or abuse of authority is shown in issuing bonds, the statutory authority to levy a tax sufficient to meet the interest and principal of the bonds is controlling.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Sumter County; J. C. B. Koonce, Judge.
James F. Glen, of Tampa, and Louis W. Duval, of Ocala, for appellants.
J. T. McCollum, of Bushnell, for appellee.
In proceedings brought under the statute for that purpose (section 3296 et seq., Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920), the circuit court by decree validated a proposed issue of county bonds by the county commissioners of Sumter county, for constructing hard-surfaced highways in the county (section 1531 et seq., Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920).
An appeal was taken by intervening taxpayers, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. West v. Gray
...implications as well as by express provisions.' 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, § 16, pp. 51-54. Amos v. Mathews, supra; Getzen v. Sumter County, 89 Fla. 45, 103 So. 104; State v. Greer, supra; State ex rel. McKay v. Keller, supra; In re Warner's Estate, 160 Fla. 460, 35 So.2d The first and ......
-
Lewis v. Leon County
...339, 29 L. R. A. 416. See State ex rel. Town of Kirkwood v. County Court of St. Louis County, 142 Mo. 575, 44 S.W. 734. In Getzen v. Sumter County (Fla.) 103 So. 104, the were apparently all county roads. The primary roads were in the original soft sandy soil, and the need for hard-surfaced......
-
State Ex Rel. Attorney General v. City of Avon Park
... ... territory, and of the town of Quincy and perhaps other towns, ... as seats of the county government, each embracing one quarter ... section or 160 acres. The incorporated area of ... of I. & St. M. Drainage Dist., 239 U.S. 478, 36 S.Ct ... 204, 60 L.Ed. 392. See, also, Getzen et al. v. Sumter ... County, 89 Fla. 45, 103 So. 104 ... It has ... been repeatedly ... ...
-
State ex rel. West v. Gray
...implications as well as by express provisions.' 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, § 16, pp. 51-54. Amos v. Mathews, supra; Getzen v. Sumter County, 89 Fla. 45, 103 So. 104; State ex rel. Nuveen v. Greer, supra; State ex rel. McKay v. Keller, supra; In re Warner's Estate, 160 Fla. 460, 35 So.2d......