Holland v. Watson
| Citation | 14 So.2d 200,153 Fla. 178 |
| Parties | HOLLAND, Governor, et al. v. WATSON, Attorney General. |
| Decision Date | 15 June 1943 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Rehearing Denied July 6, 1943.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Leon County; W. May Walker, Judge.
D. Stuart Gillis, of Tallahassee, and Giles J. Patterson, of Jacksonville, for petitioners.
J. Tom Watson, Atty. Gen., and Lawrence A. Truett, Lewis W Petteway, and George M. Powell, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent.
In March, 1943, the Attorney General filed a bill of complaint in the circuit court seeking to restrain the State Board of Ad ministration from retaining counsel other than the Attorney General. He alleges that under the common law, the statutes and the Constitution of Florida, it is his exclusive prerogative to represent the said Board. A motion to dismiss the bill was overruled and that judgment is here for review under Rule 34 of the Rules of this Court.
The question presented is whether or not the Attorney General is under the law the duly authorized legal representative of the State Board of Administration or may the said Board in its discretion retain other counsel to represent it.
Under the common law, the Attorney General was the chief law officer of the State and his duties were varied and numerous. In England, he was the chief legal advisor of the crown, entrusted with the handling of all legal affairs and the prosecution of civil and criminal suits in which the crown was interested; he enforced public charities, supervised the estates of lunatics, could abate public nuisances, and could intervene in all proceedings which affected the public generally. We inherited the common law from England but it has experienced many inflections in this country because of the disparity in area of the two countries (England's being one fortieth of ours) our heterogeneous population, and our dual sovereignty necessitating a Federal and a State aspect of the office of Attorney General.
The Federal statutes provide for an executive department to be known as the Department of Justice over which the Attorney General presides. His duties are not defined but he is required to conduct all litigation brought by or against the United States and to advise the president and heads of the different departments. Since the Federal government is one of delegated powers only and Congress can confer no power not expressly or impliedly included in the powers granted, it cannot be said that all the powers attached to the office of Attorney General, under the common law, attach to the office of Attorney General of the United States. In fact, some of the best reasoned authorities contend that the United States has no common law jurisdiction.
In a few states the Attorney General has only such powers as are expressly conferred by law. In many states, the statutes defining his duties are declaratory of the common law but the duties of that office have become so numerous and varied and vary so widely in different states and in some states they have been in part delegated to prosecuting attorneys that it is now generally conceded that the only safe determinor of his duties and prerogatives is to resort to the statutory and constitutional provisions of the State defining them. It is contended in the brief of respondent that State ex rel Landis et al. v. S. H. Kress & Co., 115 Fla. 189, 155 So. 823 defines the common law duties of the Attorney General of Florida. The question in that case was whether quo warranto was the proper remedy to oust a foreign corporation from this State.
The duties of the Attorney General of Florida are set out in Section 22 of Article IV of the Constitution and Section 16.01, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A. § 16.01, as follows:
Section 16.01, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A. § 16.01: 'The attorney general shall reside at the seat of government, and shall keep his office in a room in the capitol; he shall perform the duties prescribed by the constitution of this state, and also perform such other duties appropriate to his office, as may from time to time be required of him by law, or by resolution of the legislature; he shall, on the written requisition of the governor, secretary of state, treasurer, or comptroller, give his official opinion and legal advice in writing on any matter touching their official duties; he shall appear in and attend to in behalf of the state, all suits or prosecutions, civil or criminal, or in equity, in which the state may be a party or in any wise interested, in the supreme court of this state; he shall appear in and attend to such suits or prosecutions in any other of the courts of this state, or in any courts of any other state, or of the United States; he shall have and perform all powers and duties incident or usual to such office, and he shall make and keep in his office a record of all his official acts and proceedings, containing copies of all his official opinions, reports and correspondence, and also keep and preserve in his office all official letters and communications to him, and cause a registry and index thereof to be made and kept, all of which official papers and records shall be subject to the inspection of the governor of the state, and to the dispostion [disposition] of the legislature by act or resolution thereof.'
Summarized, Section 22 of Article IV of the Constitution makes the Attorney General the advisor of the Governor; each officer of the Executive Department, the Supreme Court reporter, and then clothes him with 'such other legal duties as may be prescribed by law.' Section 16.01, Florida Statutes 1941 F.S.A. § 16.01, was designed to embrace 'such other legal duties as may be prescribed by law.' They may be epitomized as follows: (1) Such duties as the Constitution and the Legislature lay on him, (2) His duties as legal advisor to the officers of the Executive Department, and (3) His duty as to litigation in which the State is a party or is otherwise interested. Some confusion exists in briefs of counsel as to who the 'officers of the Executive Department' are but the Constitution concludes this in that it provides that the Governor shall be assisted in the performance of his duties by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Shevin v. Exxon Corp.
...allegedly accruing to those instrumentalities. 22 Pertinent to this point are the Florida Supreme Court decisions in Holland v. Watson, 153 Fla. 178, 14 So.2d 200 (1943), and Watson v. Caldwell, 158 Fla. 1, 27 So.2d 524 (1946). In those cases, the Court held that the statutorily-created Boa......
-
Sylvester v. Tindall
...such rule-making power and with even greater force and effect. See the opinion of Mr. Justice Terrell in the recent case of Holland v. Watson, Fla., 14 So.2d 200. the people, when acting through a constitutional amendment set up an administrative commission, such as the one we are dealing w......
-
Hansen v. Utah State Retirement Bd.
...has reached a conclusion similar to the one we reach. See also Watson v. Caldwell, 158 Fla. 1, 27 So.2d 524 (1946); Holland v. Watson, 153 Fla. 178, 14 So.2d 200 (1943); Saint v. Allen, 172 La. 350, 134 So. 246 In addition to the power conferred by the Constitution, the Attorney General als......
-
ABU Dhabi Commercial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co.
...Florida Supreme Court has characterized the FSBA as a ‘body corporate’ which is distinguishable from the State of Florida.” 28 In Holland v. Watson, the court recognized that “the duties of the [FSBA] are in the main fiscal” and were “previously performed by the counties and special road an......