Merriman v. Hutchinson
| Decision Date | 28 March 1928 |
| Citation | 116 So. 271,95 Fla. 600 |
| Parties | MERRIMAN v. HUTCHINSON et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Suit by L. M. Merriman, taxpayer, against John Le Roy Hutchinson and others, constituting the Board of Commissioners of Indian River Mosquito Control District, for an injunction. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
Statute authorizing statutory administrative body to levy tax without definitely limiting rate or amount to be collected or indebtedness to be paid held invalid (Acts 1925, c. 11128) 'law.' A legislative enactment purporting to authorize a statutory administrative body to levy a tax without definitely limiting the rate of the levy or the amount to be collected, or the indebtedness that may be incurred to be paid by the tax, is an unconstitutional attempt to delegate the legislative power of taxation, and such an enactment is not a law, within the meaning of the organic provision that no tax shall be levied except in pursuant of law. [Ed. Note.--For ther definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Law.]
Statute authorizing statutory administrative body to issue bonds and levy tax without limiting either held invalid (Acts 1925, c 11128). Chapter 11128, Acts of 1925, purports to authorize a statutory administrative body to issue bonds and to levy a tax without definitely limiting either the amount of bonds that may be issued or the rate or amount of the tax levy, and the statute is inoperative because it is an unconstitutional attempt to delegate the taxing power.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Indian River County; Elwyn Thomas, judge.
Charles A. Mitchell, Jr., of Vero Beach, for appellant.
James T. Vocelle, of Vero, for appellees.
The bill of complaint brought by a taxpayer alleges that a special or local law, chapter 11128, Acts of 1925, which forms a taxing district now coextensive with Indian River county, and purports to authorize a tax to pay for bonds to be issued to raise funds to eradicate mosquitoes in the district, is null and void and unconstitutional because it violates the provision of section 20 of article 3 of the state Constitution, which forbids local or special laws 'for assessment and collection of taxes for state and county purposes,' and because it deprives complainant of property without due process of law, in that mosquito control is not a public purpose. The prayer is that the issue of bonds and a tax levy under chapter 11128 be enjoined.
It cannot be said on this record that the legislative determination 'that the control and complete elimination of all species of mosquitoes' in the district is 'found and declared to be for public purposes and to be necessary for the maintenance of the health of the inhabitants of the' district, is an undertaking that has no relation to a proper public purpose under the Constitution of this state.
The statutes do not provide generally for the elimination of mosquitoes as a county matter and as a district matter through different administrative bodies.
In state v. Walton County (Fla.) 112 So. 630, administrative officers improperly acted under statutes that required distinct and different proceedings in issuing bonds for the construction of public roads. Here a special or local law attempts to authorize a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitney v. Hillsborough County
...... the question is settled by the decisions of this court in. Stewart v. Daytona, etc., Dist., 94 Fla. 859, 114. So. 545; Merriman v. Hutchinson, 95 Fla. 600, 116. So. 271, and State v. Bass, 96 Fla. 478, 118 So. 212, 214. The boards or bodies involved in the decisions last. ......
-
State Ex Rel. Davis v. Ryan
......et al. v. Tyler et al., 88. Fla. 14, 101 So. 280; Stewart v. Daytona & New Smyrna. Inlet Dist. et al., 94 Fla. 859, 114 So. 545;. Merriman v. Hutchinson, 95 Fla. 600, 116 So. 271. . . The. wisdom of the authority conferred by the statutes is not. subject to judicial ......
-
State Ex Rel. Bd. of Com'rs of Indian River Mosquito Control Dist. v. Board of Com'rs of Indian River County
......The limit of the tax is fixed. at ten mills. The power of the district to issue bonds was. before this court in Merriman v. Hutchinson, 95 Fla. 600, 116 So. 271, and the bonding [103 Fla. 950] provisions of. the act held to be unconstitutional because no limit was. ......
-
State Ex Rel. Smith v. Loftus
...to be conferred upon the board is not limited by legislative provisions, and the statute exceeds legislative authority.' In Merriman v. Hutchinson, supra, we 'The act purports to authorize 'a special tax, sufficient in amount to pay the interest becoming due and payable annually upon the bo......