Hampton v. State Board of Education
| Decision Date | 27 June 1925 |
| Citation | 90 Fla. 88,105 So. 323 |
| Parties | HAMPTON et al. v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF FLORIDA et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Suit by B. F. Hampton and another against the State Board of Education and Cary A. Hardee and others, as members thereof for specific performance of a contract to sell school lands and for incidental and general relief. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the bill of complaint, complainants appeal.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
State cannot be sued without its consent; suit against state officers may, in effect, be suit against state. A state cannot be sued without its consent, and a suit against state officers may be, in effect, a suit against the state, which cannot be maintained, unless permitted by statute pursuant to section 22, art. 3, of the Constitution.
Immunity from suit is absolute and unqualified. The immunity of a state from suit is absolute and unqualified and the constitutional provision securing it is not to be so construed as to place the state within the reach of the process of the court.
Suits against state officers, in which state is real party against which relief is sought, are suits against state. Suits against officers of a state as representing the state in action and liability, where the state, although not a party to the record, is the real party against which relief is sought, and where a judgment for the plaintiff, although nominally against the defendant as an individual, could operate to control the action of the state of subject it to liability, are suits against the state.
Rule forbidding suit against state officers applies only if interest of state is through some contract or property right. The rule which forbids a suit against state officers because in effect a suit against the state applies, only where the interest of the state is through some contract or property right, and it is not enough that the state should have a mere interest in the vindication of its laws, or in their enforcement as affecting the public at large, or the rights of individuals or corporations; it must be an interest of value in a material sense to the state as a distinct entirety.
Suit against state officers to compel them to perform contracts of state, or do acts imposing contractual liability on state, is suit against state. A suit against state officers for the purpose of enforcing through them the performance of the contracts of the state, or to compel them to do acts which would impose contractual liabilities upon the state, is a suit against the state.
Suit involving, contract or property rights of state with reference to property cannot be maintained, though brought against state officers. Where a suit involves a contract or property rights of the state with reference to property owned and held by the state, the suit is in legal effect a suit against the state, though it be brought against officers, and it cannot be maintained in so far as it affects property rights of the state, or seeks to enforce a contract made by or for the state, unless the consent of the state be duly given.
No statute authorizes state to be sued to enforce contract to sell state school lands; statutory authority to fix terms of sale of state school lands does not authorize suit to enforce contract. There is no statute authorizing the state to be sued to enforce contracts for the sale of state school lands and the statutory authority to 'fix the terms of sale,' etc., of such lands, does not by implication authorize a suit to enforce a contract for the sale of state school lands, and the statute does not require any particular or general act or contract to be performed by the state officers who are authorized to sell state school lands.
Suits against trustees of state lands with reference to execution of trust held not suits against state. Suits against trustees of state lands, granted to state by Act Cong. March 3, 1845 and swamp and overflowed lands received by state, under Act Cong. Sept. 28, 1850 (U. S. Comp. St. §§ 4958-1960), title to which was vested in trustees, by Rev. Gen. St. 1920, § 1055 et seq., with reference to execution of trust, including sale of such lands and use of proceeds for trust, are not suits against state.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; H. F. Atkinson, Judge.
Hampton & Hampton, of Gainesville, for appellants.
Rivers Buford, Atty. Gen., Hudson & Cason, of Miami, and J. B. Johnson, of Tallahassee, for appellees.
Charles R. Pierce, of Miami, amicus curiae.
The Constitution contains the following:
The Statutes provide:
'The state board of education are directed and empowered:
Sections 601, 602, par. 1, Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920.
'Credit shall not be allowed for the purchase money on the sale of any of the school or seminary lands of this state, but every purchaser of such lands shall, at the time of purchase, make complete payment therefor.' Section 603, Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920.
These statutes were in force when the contract herein was entered into.
An act of Congress approved March 3, 1845, (5 Stat. 788), is as follows:
'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that in consideration of the concessions made by the state of Florida in respect to the public lands, there be granted to the said state eight entire sections of land for the purpose of fixing their seat of government; also, section number sixteen in every township, or other lands equivalent thereto, for the use of the inhabitants of such township, for the support of public schools; also, two entire townships of land, in addition to the two townships already reserved, for the use of two seminaries of learning-one to be located east, and the other west of the Suwannee river; also, five per centum of the net proceeds of the sale of lands within said state, which shall be hereafter sold by Congress, after deducting all expenses incident to the same; and which said net proceeds shall be applied by said state for the purposes of education.' I Minutes I. I. Fund, 1855 to 1872, p. 7.
On February 26, 1859 (11 Stat. at Large, p. 385), the Congress of the United States enacted a law of a general nature, which applies alike to all the public land states having school grants of sections 16 or 36, including Florida, who has a school grant passed by Congress March 3, 1845 (5 Stat. at Large, p. 788), granting to her 'section 16, of every township, or other lands equivalent thereto,'--said Act of February 26, 1859, reads as follows:
'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that where settlements, with a view to pre-emption, have been made before the survey of the lands in the field which shall be found to have been made on sections 16 or 36, said sections shall be subject to the pre-emption claim of such settler; and if they, or either of them, shall have been or shall be reserved or pledged for the use of schools or colleges in the state or territory in which the lands lie, other lands of like quantity are hereby appropriated in lieu of such as may be patented by pre-emptors; and other lands are also hereby appropriated to compensate deficiencies for school purposes, where said sections 16 or 36 are fractional in quantity, or where one or both are wanting by reason of the township being fractional, or from any natural cause whatever: Provided, that the lands by this section appropriated, shall be selected and appropriated in accordance with the principles of adjustment and the provisions of the act of Congress of May twentieth, eighteen hundred and twenty-six, entitled 'An act to appropriate lands for the support of schools in certain townships and fractional townships not before provided for.”
See, also, 42 U.S. Stats. at Large, p. 857.
On April 20, 1893, the state board of education placed the following on its official minutes:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Town of Crescent City v. Holland
... ... public lands is the State School Board entitled to an ... accounting and recovery ... 'The section ... and article of the ... Constitution of 1885 makes no material change, except vesting ... a 'State Board of Education of Florida' with the ... power and duty of managing and [151 Fla. 817] investing all ... State ... authority of the State School Board considered in Hampton ... v. State Board of Education, 90 Fla. 88, 105 So. 323, 42 ... A.L.R. 1456. This suit is not ... ...
-
Carlton v. Mathews
... ... John E. Mathews against Doyle E. Carlton, as Governor of the ... State of Florida; and others. From several adverse orders, ... the defendants ... other special taxing districts, will be used by the board of ... administration, a fiscal agency of the participating ... this is not an unauthorized suit against the state ( ... Hampton v. State Board of Education, 90 Fla. 88, 105 ... So. 323, 42 A. L. R ... ...
-
Megee v. Barnes
...interest of the state is involved.' Among numerous citations in support of the quoted statement is Hampton v. State Board of Education, 90 Fla. 88, 105 So. 323, 42 A.L.R. 1456. And see Anno. page 1464 et seq; Dunn v. Schmid, 239 Minn. 559, 562, 60 N.W.2d 14, 16, and other citations in Note ......
-
Rupp v. Bryant
... ... Law Rep. 1309 ... Robert E. RUPP, Ray R. Stasco, and the School Board of Duval County, Florida, a body corporate, Appellants, ... Glenn K ... trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failing to state a cause of action. The District Court of Appeal, First District, reversed ... See Hampton v. State Board of Education, 90 Fla. 88, 102, 105 So. 323, 328 ... ...