Landis v. Reeve
| Citation | 106 Fla. 28,142 So. 654 |
| Parties | LANDIS, Atty. Gen., ex rel. QUIGG v. REEVE. |
| Decision Date | 18 June 1932 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Error to Circuit Court, Dade County; Paul D. Barns, Judge.
Quo warranto by Cary D. Landis, Attorney General, on the relation of H. Leslie Quigg, against Guy C. Reeve. Judgment for defendant, and relator brings error.
Affirmed.
COUNSEL Price, Price & Hancock and Ross Williams, all of Miami, for plaintiff in error.
J. W Watson, Jr., and E. F. P. Brigham, both of Miami, for defendant in error.
In March, 1928, relator, H. Leslie Quigg, was suspended as chief of police of the city of Miami and respondent, Guy C. Reeve was appointed to succeed him. Quigg's suspension was presumably made as authorized by section 26 of the city charter, though it was predicated on the fact that he (Quigg) had recently been indicted for murder in the first degree. The order of suspension was later amended so as to embrace the additional grounds of neglect of duty and for the good of the service. Both orders with the causes thereof were regularly certified to the city commission which, after investigation and hearing, consented to and approved the suspension. The action of the city manager and the city commission was not resisted nor questioned for more than three years, but in August, 1931, Quigg, as relator instituted this proceeding in quo warranto to test the right of the respondent to hold and exercise the duties of the office of chief of police of the city of Miami.
Except as to whether or not a delay of more than three years in resisting or attempting to question the validity of this suspension and removal constituted an abandonment of any right or title he may have had to the office of chief of police of the city of Miami, the questions presented in this case are similar to those raised in Hardy Bryan v. Cary D. Landis ex rel. Guy C. Reeve (Fla.) 142 So. 650 decided this date, and are fully answered in that case.
Plaintiff in error contends that laches as to a proceeding in quo warranto will not run against the state. This rule seems well supported. McPhail v. People ex rel. Lambert, 160 Ill. 77, 43 N.E. 382, 52 Am. St. Rep. 306; State v. Pawtuxet Turnpike Co., 8 R. I. 521, 94 Am. Dec. 123; 21 Corpus Juris, 1189-9; 10 R. C. L. §§ 21 and 143. But, even if there were no exceptions to it, which we do not here decide, it does not necessarily follow that an office or the right thereto may not be abandoned by the claimant.
Under the city charter of the city of Miami (sections 16 and 24), the chief of police is appointed by the city manager. Subject to the supervision of the director of public safety, he has immediate direction and control of the police force. All orders, rules, and regulations for the government of the police force and the city are promulgated by the director of public safety through the chief of police. He is required to give his entire time to the performance of his duties, and is prohibited from leaving the city for any purpose except on official business, unless granted a written leave of absence by the city manager. He is required to keep his office open at all hours of the day and night, and he or one of his subordinates is required to be in constant attendance. In case of disability by reason of sickness, absence from the city, or some other cause, the director of public safety shall designate one of his captains or lieutenants to act as chief of police during such disability without additional compensation. He may arrest without warrant any person violating, in his presence, any ordinance of the city, and before entering on the discharge of his duties he is required to take an oath that he will faithfully perform the duties of his office.
Such grave and important duties involving the safety and welfare of a great municipality should not have been taken lightly though the record discloses that plaintiff in error waited more than three years after he was removed before he raised his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Boudreaux v. Alford
...... cited therein; State ex rel. Pepper v. Sewerage & Water. Board, 177 La. 740, 149 So. 441; Renshaw v. State, 149 Fla. 342, 5 So.2d 700; Landis, Att'y Gen. ex rel. Quigg v. Reeve, 106 Fla. 28, 142 So. 654; State ex rel. Ball v. City. of Knoxville, 177 Tenn. 162, 147 S.W.2D 97, 145 A.L.R. ......
-
Renshaw v. State ex rel. Hickland
...his conduct and failure to institute action within the two year period, now barred by lapse of time from maintaining this action? The case of Landis, Atty. Gen. ex rel. Quigg v. 106 Fla. 28, 142 So. 654, 655, involved the office of Chief of Police of the City of Miami, Florida. The incumben......
-
Bryan v. Landis
...Atty. Gen., on the relation of Guy C. Reeve, against Hardy Bryan. Judgment for relator, and defendant brings error. Affirmed. See, also, 142 So. 654. J. W. Watson, Jr., of Miami, for plaintiff in error. E. F. P. Brigham, of Miami, for defendant in error. OPINION TERRELL, J. On July 13, 1931......
-
State ex rel. Mann v. Burns, A-274
...that reasoning to this case, a much greater time elapsed in which appellant might have sought reinstatement. In Landis ex rel. Quigg v. Reeve, 106 Fla. 28, 142 So. 654, 655, where the Chief of Police waited more than three years before protesting his removal from office, the Supreme Court '......