Lasseter v. State

• Citation: 67 Fla. 240,64 So. 847
• Parties: LASSETER v. STATE ex rel. HALLOWES, State's Atty., et al.
• Decision Date: 17 March 1914
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Florida

64 So. 847

67 Fla. 240

LASSETER v. STATE ex rel. HALLOWES, State's Atty., et al.

Florida Supreme Court

March 17, 1914

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

Petition by the State, on relation of W. A. Hallowes, Jr., State's Attorney, and another, for a decree validating municipal bonds of the city of Jacksonville, and B. G. Lasseter intervened. From a decree validating the bonds, intervener appeals. Affirmed.

See also, 64 So. 1022.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

When the Governor actually calls the Legislature together under section 8, art. 4, and section 2, art. 3, of the Constitution of 1885, it is immaterial what he may have thought of his action.

Where the journals of the House of Representatives show that on the final passage of a bill a large majority of the House voted for it, but six members were not accounted for as voting aye or no, it is not essential to a compliance with the constitutional provision (section 17, art. 3) that the journal should show the six members not accounted for either refused to vote, or voted in the negative, or that there were no negative votes.

Chapter 6237, Laws of 1911, is not unconstitutional and void because in the third section it confines the right of intervention in a proceeding brought to validate the bonds issued under the authority of the act to citizens of Florida who may be residents in the county or municipality desiring to issue the bonds. This question, under section 8, art. 8, of the Constitution, is within the control of the Legislature.

Under the authority conferred upon the mayor and city council of Jacksonville by sections 3 and 9 of chapter 6415, they had authority to change the language of the bonds and coupons as to the place of payment in New York, and, in lieu thereof insert the following: 'The United States Mortgage & Trust Company in the city of New York.'

The fact that the bonds which are involved in this validating proceeding are made to bear interest from March 1, 1913, does not render ineffectual the decree of validation dated 24th of June, 1913.

The fact that the coupons of the bonds issued in this case are made acceptable for taxes or other dues to the city of Jacksonville does not authorize the city to issue bills of credit or currency, nor does this provision create an unlawful discrimination between classes of individuals holding bonds and those not holding them.

Where a board of election commissioners, whose duty it was to canvass an election, consisted of three members, and two of them met pursuant to statutory notice, and proceeded to canvass the returns of the election, and signed the certificate showing the result of the election, the two commissioners thus acting constituted a quorum for transacting business, and their certificate was legal.

It is not a fatal objection to the canvass of a vote by election commissioners, under chapter 6415, Laws of 1912, that it was made from the returns in the office of the city recorder, and not from the returns filed with the chairman of the board of election commissioners, inasmuch as the said returns were in duplicate, and both of equal dignity, authority, and probative force.

Chapter 6237, Laws of 1911, is broad enough in its terms to apply not only to then existing laws, but also covers proceedings brought under subsequent statutes, and the title of the act fairly indicates the nature of the act, and the true effect of the same.

There is no conflict between sections 3 and 9 of chapter 6415, Laws of 1912, because, construing the two sections together, the gold coin mentioned in section 9 is the kind of gold coin described in section 3; i. e., gold coin of the United States of the present standard of weight and fineness.

COUNSEL J. C. Cooper & Son, E. J. L'Engle, and Powell & Pelot, all of Jacksonville, for appellant.

W. A. Hallowes, Jr., State Atty., and P. H. Odom and C. D. Rinehart, both of Jacksonville, for appellees.

OPINION

HOCKER, J.

On the 19th of May, 1913, W. A. Hallowes, as state attorney of the Fourth judicial circuit, under the authority conferred on him by section one (1), c. 6237, Laws of 1911, filed a petition in the circuit court for a decree validating certain bonds described in the decree copied below. On June 2, 1913, B. G. Lasseter, on his own petition, alleging his citizenship and ownership of property in Jacksonville, was allowed to intervene in said cause. He filed an answer and demurrer to the petition of State Attorney Hallowes. Some testimony was taken before the judge. On June 24, 1913, a final hearing was had and a decree was entered, which is as follows:

'In the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida.

'The State of Florida ex rel. W. A. Hallowes, Jr., State's Attorney, Petitioner, v. City of Jacksonville, a Municipal Corporation in Duval County, Florida, Defendant. B. G. Lasseter, Intervener Defendant.

'Action to validate and confirm city of Jacksonville dock and terminal bonds to be issued under chapter 6415, Laws of Florida.

'Decree Validating and Confirming Jacksonville Dock and Terminal Bonds.

'This cause coming on to be heard on the original petition, the sworn answer thereto filed by the said city of Jacksonville, the demurrer and answer to said petition filed by B. G. Lasseter, intervener, and the testimony taken before the court, and the same having been argued and submitted for final hearing by the respective parties hereto, upon consideration thereof, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the equities in said cause are with the petitioner, and the prayer of the petition is hereby granted; that the said city of Jacksonville dock and terminal bonds are hereby validated and confirmed, and when said bonds are duly issued, sold, and delivered, the same shall be valid and legal obligations against the said city of Jacksonville, and this decree shall be forever conclusive upon the validity of said bonds against the said city, and the validity thereof shall never be called in question in any court in this state.

'Done and ordered this 24th day of June, A. D. 1913.

Daniel A. Simmons, Judge.'

On the 23d of December, 1913, B. G. Lasseter entered his appeal from this decree.

The first six assignments of error are abandoned.

The seventh assignment is as follows: 'Said circuit court erred in making and entering its order and decree of June 24, 1913, validating and confirming said city of Jacksonville dock and terminal bonds.' This general assignment only raises the question of the merits of the decree. Assignments of error ought to be specific. Newberry v. State, 26 Fla. 334, 8 So. 445; Hodge v. State, 26 Fla. 11, 7 So. 593; 2 Ency. Pl. & Pr. 954. Under this assignment, the appellant presents divers grounds based on rulings on demurrers to the petition. The third ground takes exception to the manner in which the Legislature of 1912 was called in session by the Governor. It is alleged the journals show affirmatively the Governor did not believe it necessary to call the extra session. The journals also show he did call it together, and what he may have thought of his act is immaterial, under section 8, art. 4, and section 2, art. 3, Constitution of 1885. Farrelly v. Cole, 60 Kan. 356, 56 P. 492, 44 L. R. A. 464.

The next question presented by the brief is that chapter 6415 Laws of 1912, was not passed in conformity with the requirements of, nor in the manner prescribed by, section 17 of the Constitution of Florida as amended in this, that the yeas and nays were not entered in the journal of the House of Representatives upon the vote on the final passage of said act, as required by said section as amended, but only the affirmative votes, and it is not stated or shown by said journal how the members of said House, other than those who voted affirmatively, voted upon the final passage of said act; and, in connection with this question, is another, viz., that the yeas and nays were not entered in the Journals of the House as required by this section of the Constitution. It is admitted by appellant in his brief that the journal in question shows affirmatively that Senate Bill No. 3 (the bill in question), on its final passage, received 65 affirmative votes in the House on its final passage from members properly named in the journals, who, at the time the vote was cast, constituted a clear majority of all its members and a legal and sufficient quorum of said House of Representatives. But it is contended that before the regular passage of the bill can be claimed, that the journal of the House should show, in addition, that the six members not accounted for on the final vote, either refused to vote or voted in the negative, and that, in the event there were no negative votes, this fact must affirmatively appear as a part of the journal entry, and, the journal failing to show this information, chapter 6415 (Senate Bill No. 3) of the Acts of 1912 is, for the reason stated, inoperative and void. On pages 51 and 5i of the Journal of the House it is seen that 65 members voted yea, and does not show that the other six members voted nay, or that they declined to vote. State ex rel. Markens v. Brown, 20 Fla. 407, is cited by appellant. The facts in that case are unlike those in the instant case, but appellant copies from the opinion in the case a quotation from Cooley's Constitutional Limitations to the effect that it will not be presumed, from the mere silence of the journals, that either house has exceeded its authority, or disregarded a constitutional requirement, in the passage of a legislative act, unless where the Constitution has expressly required the journals to show the action taken, as, for instance, where it requires the yeas and nays to be entered. Of course this can only apply to cases...