Jordan v. Duval County

• Decision Date: 30 June 1914
• Citation: Jordan v. Duval County, 68 Fla. 48, 66 So. 298 (Fla. 1914)
• Parties: JORDAN v. DUVAL COUNTY et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

66 So. 298

68 Fla. 48

JORDAN v. DUVAL COUNTY et al.

Florida Supreme Court

June 30, 1914

Appeal from Circuit Court, Duval County; Daniel A. Simmons, Judge.

Injunction by N. B. Jordan against Duval County and others. From an order denying the application and sustaining demurrers to the bill, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

The courts will not decline to give effect to the legislative intent as expressed in a duly enacted statute on the ground that it is unconstitutional, unless it clearly appears beyond all reasonable doubt, that the statute in its essential features is in positive conflict with some identified provision of organic law.

The Constitution does not define or amplify the term 'county purposes' for which counties may be authorized 'to assess and impose taxes,' and the Legislature, in exercising its appropriate lawmaking functions, may determine what is a 'county purpose,' and the courts are not authorized to render such determination ineffectual, unless some provision of the Constitution is violated, or unless the particular enactment can have no legal or practical relations whatever to any 'county purpose.'

Where the courts may inquire into the existence of legislative power to enact a statute, the absence of power must clearly appear before the statute will be declared to be ineffectual for the purpose designed.

The courts are authorized to determine the legality of a statute in appropriate proceedings; but considerations of policy including the necessity and wisdom of a regulation are determined by the Legislature in enacting the statute.

As applied to the taxing power that may be conferred upon counties, the organic mandate that 'the Legislature shall provide for a uniform and equal rate of taxation' does not require that the rate of taxation shall be the same in each and every county, but that all property which is legally taxable for a given purpose shall be subjected to 'a uniform and equal rate of taxation.'

Chapter 6580, Acts of 1913, is a special and local law authorizing the county of Duval upon stated conditions to issue bonds and to levy taxes to pay the principal and interest thereof for the purpose of erecting and equipping an armory to be used in whole or in part for the state militia, in the county 'upon such terms and conditions and with such limitation or reservation of the use of said armory, * * * as may by said board of county commissioners be determined to be for the best interests of said county,' and it does not appear beyond all reasonable doubt that such enactment violates sections 1 and 5 of article 9 of the Constitution limiting county taxation to the field of 'county purposes.'

COUNSEL P. H. Odom, of Jacksonville, for appellant.

Fleming & Fleming and C. E. Pelot, all of Jacksonville, for appellees.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

Chapter 6580, Acts of 1913, is a local and special law authorizing the county of Duval, if duly approved by the qualified voters of the county, to issue bonds and to levy a tax to pay the principal and interest thereof----

'for the purpose of providing and procuring a site for the erection of an armory and for the construction and equipment of an armory to be placed in whole or in part under the jurisdiction and at the disposal of the armory board of the state of Florida, and its successors, or under the jurisdiction and disposal of any board, commission or officer, which may hereafter by law be vested with the powers of said armory board, and upon such terms and conditions and with such limitation or reservation of the use of said armory, or any part thereof, as may by said board of county commissioners be determined to be for the best interest of said county of Duval.'

The circuit judge denied the application of a taxpayer to have the issuance of the bonds enjoined, and sustained demurrers to the bill of complaint. The taxpayer appealed. It is contended that the statute authorizing the issue of the bonds violates sections 1 and 5 of article 9 of the state Constitution, which are as follows:

'Section 1. The Legislature shall provide for a uniform and equal rate of taxation, and shall prescribe such regulations as shall secure a just valuation of all property, both real and personal, excepting such property as may be exempted by law for municipal, educational, literary, scientific, religious or charitable purposes.'

'Section 5. The Legislature shall authorize the several counties and incorporated cities or towns in the state to assess and impose taxes for county and municipal purposes, and for no other purposes, and all property shall be taxed upon the principles established for state taxation. * * *'

No question under the federal law is presented in this case.

The courts will not decline to give effect to the legislative intent as expressed in a duly enacted statute on the ground that it is unconstitutional, unless it clearly appears beyond all reasonable...