Kirkland v. Phillips

• Decision Date: 21 November 1958
• Citation: 106 So.2d 909
• Parties: Frand KIRKLAND, Arthur G. Preacher, Howard Hornsby, David L. Sykes, and Joe Edd Ward, as members of and constituting the Board of County Commissioners of Liberty County, Florida, and W. A. Woodward, as Clerk of the Circuit Court, in and for Liberty County, Florida, Appellants, v. Richard PHILLIPS, S. P. Fairchild, Frances Gunn, Charles W. Roberts, Sr., andJohn Wynn, as members of and constituting the Board of Port Commissioners forthe Liberty County Port Authority, Appellees.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 909

106 So.2d 909

Frand KIRKLAND, Arthur G. Preacher, Howard Hornsby, David L. Sykes, and Joe EddWard, as members of and constituting the Board of County Commissioners of Liberty County, Florida, and W. A. Woodward, as Clerk of the Circuit Court, in and for Liberty County, Florida, Appellants, v.Richard PHILLIPS, S. P. Fairchild, Frances Gunn, Charles W. Roberts, Sr., andJohn Wynn, as members of and constituting the Board of Port Commissioners forthe Liberty County Port Authority, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 21, 1958.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 16, 1958.

J. Kenneth Ballinger, Tallahassee, and Marion B. Knight, Blountstown, for appellants.

J. Lewis Hall of Hall, Hartwell & Douglass, Tallahassee, for appellees.

THORNAL, Justice.

Appellants Kirkland and others, who were plaintiffs below, seek reversal of a final decree of the Chancellor upholding the constitutionality of two local acts of the Legislature.

We are called upon to determine the constitutionality of Chapter 30946,Laws of Florida 1955, andChapter 57-1533,Laws of Florida 1957, against the contention of appellants that the statutes respectively violate Sections 20and16 of Article III, Constitution of Florida, F.S.A.

By Chapter 30946,Laws of Florida 1955, a local act, the Legislature undertook to create a Port Authority for Liberty County.By Section 2 of the act it was provided that the governing board of the Port Authority would be a Board of Port Commissioners which shall consist of the County Commissioners of Liberty County and their successors.The Port Authority was generally authorized to construct wharves, docks, airports, shipping facilities, lighting and water systems, terminal facilities and other activities usually found in such authorizing legislation.The Clerk of the Circuit Court was made ex officio Clerk of the Board of Port Commissioners.Section 5 of the act appropriated $15,000 of the additional race track monies to be distributed to Liberty County by Section 550.16, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., to the Board of County Commissioners to be held in trust subject to expenditures by the Board of Port Commissioners in carrying out the purposes of the act.

Chapter 57-1533,Laws of Florida 1957, another local act, amended Sections 2 and 3 of Chapter 30946, supra, by providing that the Board of Port Commissioners of the aforesaid Port Authority was to be composed of five members, one from each County Commissioner's district, to be appointed by the Governor.Instead of naming the Clerk of the Circuit Court ex officio secretary, the amending statute authorized the Board to employ a secretary.The second act also directed the Board of County Commissioners of Liberty County and the Clerk of the Circuit Court to deliver over to the newly appointed Board of Port Commissioners all property, papers, monies, furniture, equipment and supplies immediately upon the appointment of the new Board.

Chapter 57-1533,Laws of Florida 1957, took effect June 29, 1957.On June 27, 1957, the Board of County Commissioners in their capacity as Port Authority Commissioners transferred $25,000 from the Port Authority fund to the Board of County Commissioners to be deposited in the Jail Building Fund for the purpose of renovating an abandoned jail building.The renovated building purportedly was to be used as housing facilities for both the County Commissioners and the Port Authority.When the new Board of Port Commissioners was appointed shortly after June 29, 1957, they demanded the return of the $25,000 and other property of the Port Authority.The County Commissioners alleging themselves to be in doubt as to the extent of their powers and duties in the premises filed this complaint.By the complaint they asked the Circuit Judge to enter a declaratory decree delineating their powers and duties as well as the powers and duties of the members of the new Port Authority.The appellee-Port Commissioners who were appointed under the 1957 act counterclaimed demanding the return of the Port Authority funds and property specifically described above.The appellants, plaintiffs below, alleged in their complaint the unconstitutionality of both the 1955 and 1957 local acts for various reasons which we hereafter detail.

On the basis of the pleadings the Chancellor was of the view that the statutes were constitutional.He sustained the position of the appellee Port Authority.He directed the appellants County Commissioners to return to the Port Authority the funds which had been transferred into the Jail Building Fund two days before the effective date of the 1957statute.Reversal of this decree is now sought.

The appellants contend that Chapter 30946,Laws of Florida 1955, violates Article III, Section 20, of the Constitution of Florida, which prohibits the Legislature from passing special or local laws 'regulating the jurisdiction and duties of any class of officers, except municipal officers, * * *.'Appellants contend also that Chapter 57-1533,Laws of Florida 1957, violates Article III, Section 16, of the Constitution of Florida, because of an alleged defective title.

The appellees, of course, contend that the two statutes are not violative of the cited constitutional provisions.

It appears to be the position of the appellants that by naming the Board of County Commissioners as the Board of Port Commissioners in the 1955 act, and further undertaking to specify the powers and duties of the Board of Port Commissioners, the Legislature did violence to Article III, Section 20, supra.This is so, they say, because the cited section of the Constitution prohibits local laws regulating the jurisdiction or duties of state and county officers.They claim that by Section 125.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., the powers and duties of county commissioners are defined generally.This leads them to the contention that the additional specific duties prescribed by the 1955 act constituted an unconstitutional imposition of special duties on county commissioners.They contend further that by the specific designation of $15,000 of race track funds for the use of the Port Authority, the Legislature violated the same section of the Constitution by depriving the county commissioners of their lawful discretion in the handling and disposition of county monies.

We think neither of these contentions is sound.It appears to us that the objectives to be accomplished by Chapter 30946,Laws of Florida 1955, establishing the Port Authority for Liberty County, are well within our many precedents defining county purposes.It is clear that the Legislature contemplated establishing an agency with the power to construct and operate such public facilities as wharves, docks, airports, ship and railroad terminals and other public facilities now so commonly conducted and carried on at the county level.Our statute books are full of authorizing legislation establishing similar authorities for many Florida counties.There are taxing districts, hospital districts, drainage districts and many other similar districts or such agencies of county government that have been created by local acts of the Legislature.The cases sustain the notion that these agencies serve a useful and valid county function.In many instances they have contributed immeasurably to the growth and development of the counties which they serve.We have no difficulty, therefore, in reaching the conclusion that the functions authorized to be performed by the Port Authority for Liberty County were valid and proper county functions.Having arrived at this point, it is perfectly clear that the duties imposed upon the county commissioners by the 1955 act were merely incidental to the main purposes of the act and being such the act will not be considered as violative of Article III, Section 20, of the Florida Constitution.State ex rel. Glover v. Holbrook, 129 Fla. 241, 176 So. 99, and cases therein cited.

We refrain from burdening this opinion with the abundance of our own decisions which could be cited to support the proposition last stated.A few will be illustrative.In State ex rel. Landis v. Reardon, 114 Fla. 755, 154 So. 868, we sustained a local act which abolished the Board of Commissioners of St. Lucie Inlet District and Port Authority theretofore existing and replaced it with a new board consisting of the five County Commissioners of Martin County and the Chairman and one member of the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County.The imposition of these added responsibilities to the normal functions of the County Commissioners was held not violative of the Constitution.

In State ex rel. Watson v. Crooks, 153 Fla. 694, 15 So.2d 675, we upheld a local act abolishing the Ft. Pierce Port District and substituting in lieu thereof the Ft. Pierce Inlet District to be governed by the Board of...