Overman v. State Bd. of Control

Decision Date02 December 1952
Citation62 So.2d 696
PartiesOVERMAN et al. v. STATE BOARD OF CONTROL et al. (two cases). WHITLOCK v. STATE BOARD OF CONTROL et al.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Yonge, Beggs & Lane and E. Dixie Beggs, Pensacola, for petitioner.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., John A. Madigan, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jerry Hussey, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., R. B. Gautier, Jr., Robert H. Anderson, Miami, LeRoy Collins, Ben C. Willis, Tallahassee, and G. L. Reeves, Tampa, for respondents.

TERRELL, Justice.

The State Board of Control instituted this suit by bill of complaint, praying for an interpretation of Chapter 26763, Acts of 1951, F.S.A. §§ 242.62 and note, 242.63, authorizing the payment of $3000 per year for each Florida student enrolled in the first approved and Accredited Medical School established in the State. The bill also prayed that the Governor and the Comptroller be directed to draw and countersign the necessary warrants on the State Treasury to transfer said funds to Miami University, it being the first medical school established in the state in contemplation of the act.

The Governor and the Comptroller answered the bill, admitting the enactment of Chapter 26763, that it authorized a subsidy of $3000 for each Florida Student enrolled in the first accredited medical school established in the state, but they disavow any knowledge of the qualification of Miami University to meet the requirements of the act or any effort on its part to do so. An amendment to the answer admitted that the Governor and the Comptroller were in doubt as to their authority to draw and countersign warrants for payment of funds appropriated by the act and stated that they would not do so until directed by a court of competent jurisdiction.

After the answer of the Governor and Comptroller was filed, appellants as citizens and taxpayers, were permitted to intervene and file an answer and a motion to dismiss. W. E. Whitlock was also permitted to intervene as a citizen, taxpayer and member of the Legislature. He moved to dismiss the bill. The chancellor overruled the motions to dismiss and this appeal by certiorari was prosecuted. June 26, 1952, a summary decree was entered by the Chancellor from which an appeal by certiorari was also entered. The record in the latter case was duly filed and the two cases have been consolidated for consideration. Both cases present the same questions and will be disposed of in this opinion.

The first question with which we are confronted is whether or not this is a case in which Chapter 87, F.S.A. authorizing declaratory decrees may be invoked.

In Sheldon v. Powell, 99 Fla. 782, 128 So. 258 and Ready v. Safeway Rock Company, 157 Fla. 27, 24 So.2d 808, this Court defined the purpose and scope of the declaratory judgments statute. In Alsop v. Pierce, 155 Fla. 185, 19 So.2d 799; Watson v. Centro Espanol De Tampa, 158 Fla. 796, 30 So.2d 288; Caldwell v. North, 157 Fla. 52, 24 So.2d 806; Rosenhouse v. 1950 Spring Term Grand Jury, Fla., 56 So.2d 445 and others, we have approved fact situations that authorize application of the declaratory judgments statute. A reading of these cases discloses (1) that the Declaratory Judgments act may be invoked in any case where technical or social advances have obscured or placed in doubt one's rights, immunities, status or privileges. (2) It should not be invoked to foster frivolous or useless litigation, to answer abstract questions, to satisfy idle curiosity, to authorize a fishing expedition or to promulgate judgments serving no useful purpose. It is therefore certain that the act is prospective, that it is never closed and may be invoked in a bona fide case if one's rights, immunities, status or privileges are shown to be in doubt or are obscured.

Is the right, immunity, status or authority of the Governor and the Comptroller placed in doubt by Chapter 26763? The act makes an appropriation of $225,000 to effectuate its purpose. Under the constitution these funds cannot be paid out except on warrant drawn by the Comptroller and countersigned by the Governor. Section 24, Article IV, State Constitution, F.S.A. In their amended answer the Governor and the Comptroller say they are in doubt as to their authority to draw and countersign warrants for the disbursement of these funds. Disbursing such an amount imposes a grave duty on the Governor and the Comptroller. We think this fact alone is sufficient to invoke the declaratory judgments act. In addition to this reason, the Board of Control, a very important arm of the State government, is clothed with a most important function under the act and is importuning us to construe it for their guidance. I think there is ample showing for declaratory judgment.

Counsel are not in agreement as to statement of the second question. The crucial point presented by it may be stated as follows: When does the $300 appropriation per year for each student accepted and enrolled in the first approved and accredited medical school established in the state, become available?

The answer to this question turns on the interpretation of the Act. Appellants contend that the act is a model of clarity, that a reading of it reveals no ambiguity, that it shows on its face that the appropriation will not be available during the present biennium because the first approved and accredited Medical School will require four years to become a reality, in that it requires a four year curriculum with a class in each year. Hence it is contended that the bill of complaint is prematurely brought. Fine v. Moran, 74 Fla. 417, 77 So. 533 and similar cases are relied on to support this contention.

We do not think the point resolves itself so easily. The title of Chapter 26763 states its purpose to be:

'An Act Relating to Medical School Education in the State of Florida; Authorizing the Board of Control to Pay to the First Approved and Accredited Medical School Established in Florida the Sum of Three Thousand Dollars per Year for Each Qualified Florida Student Enrolled; Defining the Necessary Qualifications of a Medical School and Medical Students to Receive Benefits; Regulating the Expenditure of Such Funds by Said School; Limiting the Number of Students from Each County and Providing Appropriations to the Board of Control.'

The preamble points out (1) that notwithstanding a growing demand for medical education, there is no approved and accredited medical school in the State; (2) that the Legislature and People of the State desire the establishment of a state medical school; (3) that since the enactment of Chapter 24124, Acts of 1947, the state has been contributing to the support of Florida students enrolled in accredited medical schools outside the state; (4) it is the purpose of the state to encourage the establishment of an accredited medical school in this state to educate Florida men and women in medicine.

Section 1 of the act declares the purpose of the state to pay $3000.00 per year, per student enrolled in the 'first accredited and approved medical school established in the State of Florida' and section 2 imposes the following requirements for a medical school to be entitled to the appropriation.

'(A) Shall be primarily operated and established to offer, afford and render a medical education to residents of the State of Florida qualifying for admission to said institution:

'(B) Shall at no time have more than ten per cent (10%) of its total enrollment of students who are residents of states or counties other than the State of Florida;

'(C) Shall be operated by a municipality or county of this state, or by a non-profit organization heretofore or hereafter established exclusively for educational purposes;

'(D) Upon the formation and establishment of an accredited medical school, said school shall, through its duly constituted officers, transmit and file with the Board of Control of this state documentary proof evidencing the facts such institution has been certified and approved by the Council on Medical Education and Hospitals of the American Medical Association; and has adequately met the requirements of said Council in regard to its administrative facilities, administrative plant, clinical facilities, curriculum and all other such requirements as may be necessary to qualify with said Council as a recognized approved and accredited medical school;

'(E) Shall certify to the Board of Control of this State sixty (60) days prior to the commencement of any school year the name, address and educational history of each student approved and accepted for enrollment in said institution for the ensuing school year.'

Section 3 provides that the Board of Control shall within 60 days of receipt of the enrollment of said medical school pay it the amount appropriated for each student accepted and approved for enrollment, provided said medical student and his or her parents or legal guardian have been bona fide residents of the State of Florida for seven years prior to the date of admittance and enrollment as a medical student. Repayment of the funds to the state is required...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • State v. Jacksonville Port Authority
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • July 19, 1967
    ...72 So.2d 655; appropriating state funds to the first accredited private medical school established in the state, Overman v. State Board of Control (Fla.), 62 So.2d 696; construction of recreational facilities which could be leased out to private enterprises, State v. Escambia County (Fla.),......
  • City Commission of City of Fort Pierce v. State ex rel. Altenhoff
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 25, 1962
    ...legislature had in mind. The problem is to arrive at the legislative intent from the content of the Act as is. Overman v. State Board of Control, et al., Fla., 62 So.2d 696.' 'Persuasive authority from other jurisdictions has been examined without conclusive result. As stated above, few of ......
  • O'Neill v. Burns
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • January 25, 1967
    ...Fla., 72 So.2d 655; appropriation of funds to the first accredited private medical school established in the state, Overman v. State Board of Control, Fla., 62 So.2d 696; construction of recreational facilities which could be leased out to private enterprises, State v. Escambia County, Fla.......
  • Chiles v. Children A, B, C, D, E, and F
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • October 29, 1991
    ...of controversies in the operation of essential governmental functions and in the disbursement of public funds. See Overman v. State Bd. of Control, 62 So.2d 696 (Fla.1952). We find the children have demonstrated the existence of present ascertainable facts which were sufficient to permit th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT