Hunter v. Owens

• Decision Date: 08 December 1920
• Citation: 86 So. 839,80 Fla. 812
• Parties: HUNTER v. OWENS, Tax Assessor, et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

86 So. 839

80 Fla. 812

HUNTER v. OWENS, Tax Assessor, et al.

Florida Supreme Court

December 8, 1920

Suit by James J. Hunter against James M. Owens, as Tax Assessor of Palm Beach County, and others. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Sole limitation upon power of taxation must be found in federal and state Constitutions. In the exercise of its inherent sovereign powers, the state may impose taxes to be used for a governmental purpose, and the only limitations imposed are those contained in the federal and state Constitutions designed to protect personal and property rights against arbitrary and oppressive exertions of governmental power.

Extent of taxing unit for public purpose defined. The extent of a taxing unit for a public purpose may be confined to a designated district or subdivision that may be or whose inhabitants may be directly and peculiarly benefited by the application of the tax money to the purpose contemplated.

That persons not taxed may be benefited by a public undertaking does not affect power of taxation. The object of a tax may be a matter designed to conserve the public health, comfort, and convenience of the inhabitants and others in the particular community, and the mere fact that persons who do not share the tax burden may also be benefited by the undertaking does not affect the governmental power. It is not practicable or contemplated that public benefits shall be shared only by those who bear the burden thereof.

Validity of exercise of police power does not depend on actual accomplishment of purpose. The validity of a statute exerting the police power does not depend upon the absolute assurance that the purpose designed can in fact be or will most probably be fully accomplished as contemplated, or upon the certainty that it will best conserve the purpose intended or that the purpose designed is necessary or expedient for the general welfare.

Invalidity of statutes depends only upon actual conflict with organic law. Matters of policy, expediency, and wisdom are determined by the enactment of statutes; and their invalidity is dependant only upon actual conflicts with organic law.

Taxing statute for conserving public health, etc., valid unless it violates organic law. Where a statute levying a tax, in terms or in effect, states that it is for the purpose of conserving the public health, comfort, and convenience, it may be sustained on that ground, if otherwise valid, unless it clearly appears from the act itself, or from a consideration of the circumstances and conditions within which it is to operate, that the law in reality has no fair relation to the public purpose stated or manifestly intended, or that it in effect violates organic law while superficially appearing to serve a lawful public purpose.

Inapplicability of statute under given conditions does not render it invalid. Where a statute is not cleraly violative of organic law in its expressed terms and legal effect, or its manifest purpose, it will not be held inoperative as in conflict with organic law merely because it may not be constitutionally applied under given conditions, or merely because it is doubtful whether it will be as efficacious as was apparently contemplated, where circumstances are conceivable within which the law may validly operate or where its efficacy as intended may be realized in the course of human events.

Rule as to testing validity of statute with reference to operation stated. In testing the validity of a statute with reference to the facts and circumstances upon which it is to operate the validity of the statute does not depend upon the preponderance of evidentiary considerations; but the statute stands unless it conclusively appears that there are or can be no conceivable circumstances upon which it can validly operate, or that under no circumstances can it operate or be effective to accomplish the intended purpose, without violating organic rights.

Propriety of action under statute may be subject to judicial review. The propriety of action taken under a statute is subject to judicial review.

That private corporation may be ultimately benefited does not invalidate statute. While under the Constitution 'no tax shall be levied for the benefit of any chartered company of the state' (section 7, art. 9), yet if a public improvement that is afforded by tax levies does merely incidentally benefit private corporations along with other persons, the Constitution is not violated in levying the tax for the public purpose, for the law contemplates that corporations shall participate in the burdens and benefits of taxations within appropriate limitations.

Statute creating improvement district held valid. Chapter 7080, Acts 1915, is not on its face an arbitrary exertion of governmental power oppressive of private rights; and it does not appear that its due operation will violate organic law. Illegality or abuse of authority in applying the statute may be remedied in due course of law.

Scope of judicial review as to statute not clearly in violation of organic law stated. The wisdom, necessity, expediency feasibility, and probable success of a governmental statutory project are not subject to judicial review, where the statute is not clearly a violation or evasion of organic law and has substantial basis in a lawful public purpose within the scope of the police power.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; E. B Donnell, judge.

COUNSEL

C. D. Abbott, of West Palm Beach, for appellant.

E. J. L'Engle and P. L. Gaskins, both of Jacksonville, for appellees.

Chapter 7080, Acts of 1915, creates and incorporates 'a special taxing district in Palm Beach county, Florida, to be known as South Lake Worth Inlet district, embracing' stated areas and provides that the governing body of said South Lake Worth Inlet district shall consist of six persons, qualified electors of said district, who shall be known as and designated by the 'board of commissioners of South Lake Worth Inlet district,' and who shall be elected as provided for in this act.

It is also provided:

Section 5. 'That said board is hereby authorized and empowered to construct and thereafter to maintain an inlet or waterway connecting the waters of Lake Worth with the Atlantic Ocean, at a convenient and proper place within said district, and to do all acts and things proper, necessary or convenient for that purpose and in that connection. That the opening, cutting and maintenance of said inlet or waterway at some point within the district between Lake Worth and the Atlantic Ocean is hereby found and declared to be necessary for the maintenance of the health of the inhabitants of the territory embraced in said district and for the convenience, comfort and welfare of said district and the inhabitants thereof. That the location of said inlet or waterway shall be determined by said board upon the approval and recommendation of the chief engineer of said board. In determining the location for said inlet or waterway, due consideration shall be given by said board to the following:

'(a) The kind and nature of material which will be encountered in excavating for the foundations and in removing the material preparatiory to the construction of said inlet, and the cost of the work to be done in connection therewith.

'(b) The natural depth of water on both the Atlantic Ocean and Lake Worth ends of said proposed inlet or waterway, as affecting the future maintenance of the channel and the efficiency and operation of said waterway.

'(c) The convenience which will result to the inhabitants of said district in using said inlet or waterway.

'(d) All other features which from an engineering or economic standpoint should be considered as having weight in determining the exact location of said inlet or waterway.

'If reasonable doubt exists in the mind of said chief engineer, or of all or any members of said board, with regard to the location of said inlet or waterway, said chief engineer, with the approval and under the directions of said board, shall employ a consulting engineer, who with said chief engineer shall make and file with said board a joint report recommending a location of said inlet or waterway, and the findings in such report, if approved by said board, shall fix the location of said inlet or waterway. Said board shall have the sole and final power to determine the location of said cannal or waterway.

'Before any construction work upon said inlet shall be undertaken, it shall be the duty of said chief engineer to prepare and submit to said board a plan showing in detail a method to be employed in the construction of said inlet or waterway and providing for full and complete protection to adjacent property from any injury or damage which might follow as a result of the construction of said inlet or waterway. Said plan shall thereafter be submitted to and approved by a competent consulting engineer thoroughly versed in works of this nature, and when so adopted and approved shall be adhered to in the construction work upon such inlet or waterway, except in case it shall appear desirable as the work advances to modify said plan in order to further insure permanency in the location of said inlet or waterway and protection to the adjacent property, then a modification of said plan to accomplish said purpose may be permitted and regularly incorporated in said plan after having been approved by said consulting engineer and adopted by said board.

'Provided further, that for any damage or injury occasioned or occurring to private property by washing, overflowing of lands from other cause, resulting from constructing of such inlet or the opening thereof, the owner of such...