Potter v. Lainhart

• Decision Date: 08 July 1902
• Citation: 33 So. 251,44 Fla. 647
• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Parties: POTTER v. LAINHART et al., Com'rs, et al.

33 So. 251

44 Fla. 647

POTTER v. LAINHART et al., Com'rs, et al.

Florida Supreme Court

July 8, 1902

Appeal from circuit court, Dade county; Minor S. Jones, Judge.

Bill by Bernard M. Potter against George W. Lainhart and others county cimmissioners, and others. Decree for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

1. A resolution of a board of county commissioners in reference to the issuance of county bonds upon a vote of the people recited that the commissioners deemed it expedient to issue bonds for the purpose of constructing paved, macadamized, or other hard-surfaced highways, and to erect a courthouse and jail in the county, and it was therefore resolved by the board that a certain amount of bonds be issued,--so much for road purposes and so much for said buildings. The resolution also fixed the denomination of the bonds to be issued, the rate of interest thereon, when and where the bonds and interest were to be payable, and fixed the day for the election and the form of ballot. This resolution was signed by all the members of the board present, constituting a quorum, recorded upon the minutes of the board, and duly published. Held, that the resolution was adopted in compliance with section 591, Rev. St., as amended by chapter 4711, Acts 1899, though the minutes did not recite that the resolution was seconded and formally voted on by the board.

2. The act of 1899 (chapter 4711), amending section 591, Rev. St is not unconstitutional, as embracing more than one subject or because the matter expressed in the act is not properly connected with its title.

3. The special provisions in sections 592-595 of the Revised Statutes, and not sections 34, 35, c. 4328, Laws 1895, apply so far as applicable, to elections by the people of a county to determine whether or not county bonds shall issue for the purposes designed in section 591, as amended in Acts 1899, c. 4711.

4. At an election held, in pursuance of sections 592-595, Rev. St., to determine whether or not county bonds shall be issued for the purposes designated in section 591, a majority of the votes cast upon the question submitted determines the result.

5. A resolution of the board of county commissioners, submitting to the vote of the people of the county whether or not bonds should be issued, recited that the commissioners deemed it expedient to issue bonds for the purpose of constructing paved, macadamized, or other hard-surfaced highways, and to erect a courthouse and jail, and that $150,000 was required for such purpose,--$50,000 for such buildings and $100,000 for roads,--and the form of the ballot prescribed was, 'For bonds,' or 'Against bonds.' Held, that under section 591, Rev. St., as amended by chapter 4711, Acts 1899, and section 593, Rev. St., the commissioners had authority to submit the question to the voters as an entirety, and that a majority vote in favor of the entire issue would authorize their issuance.

6. Under the authority to issue bonds contained in section 591, Rev. St., as amended in Acts 1899, c. 4711, and the provisions in connection therewith, the county commissioners issue the bonds, and they may prescribe their form; and where it appears that, in pursuance of a resolution of the board of county commissioners directing the issue of bonds, the form is prescribed, and with the approval of the board the bonds are signed by the chairman of the board, attested by the county clerk, who is ex officio clerk of the board, and countersigned by the county treasurer, and the bonds recite that they are the bonds of the county and are under the seal of the board of county commissioners, this will be sufficient to constitute them bonds of the county.

7. Under the statute (section 591, Rev. St., as amended by chapter 4711, Acts 1899), when the county commissioners shall deem it expedient to issue bonds for the purposes, or either of them, mentioned in the section, they shall determine, by resolution to be entered upon their records, what amount of bonds is required for such purpose, and the question under such resolution is whether such bonds shall be issued. If the vote is in favor of the bonds, the commissioners are required to issue such bonds for the purposes specified in the resolution, and have no authority to issue bonds for any other purposes than those mentioned therein.

8. Under the statutes in force in this state, county commissioners have no right to issue bonds to erect courthouses and jails until they have provided by resolution a sinking fund for their redemption. This may be done before the bonds are advertised and finally disposed of by sale in the manner authorized by statute.

9. Chapter 4912, Acts 1901, to validate any bonds issued by any county in this state since the 11th day of May, 1899, for the purpose of constructing highways, courthouses, or jails, or for either or such purposes, held, (a) not invalid on the objection that the journal did not show that it was read three times in the house of representatives; (b) not in conflict with article 9, s 5, of the constitution, providing that the legislature shall authorize the several counties and incorporated cities and towns in this state to assess and impose taxes for county and municipal purposes, and for no other purposes; (c) that it applies to bonds issued by the officers mentioned in headnote 6 as being officers authorized by law to issue county bonds; (d) that it was the effect to validate bonds coming within its provisions, if issued for roads and courthouse, when the resolution submitting the matter to a vote of the people provided for bonds for roads, courthouse, and jail, and also bonds issued and disposed of before the county commissioners provided by resolution a sinking fund for their redemption; and (e) that it applies to and validates the entire issue of $150,000 of bonds issued and disposed of by the county commissioners of Dade county in April, 1901, in the manner and under the conditions stated in the opinion, including those delivered as well as those agreed to be delivered by the county in the future. Carter, J., dissents.

10. A bid of a stated amount of dollars for county bonds advertised for sale by county commissioners means that the amount offered, if accepted, is to be paid in current money, and not in evidences of indebtedness against the county.

11. The action of the county commissioners in permitting a bidder for county bonds, whose bid has been accepted, to withdraw the entire security deposited as required by the county commissioners under section 597, Rev. St., upon making the first payment of bonds delivered, and thereby leaving no security for compliance with the bid as to portions of the bonds to be thereafter delivered, if not entirely discretionary with the commissioners, is an irregularity that may be cured by an act of the legislature.

12. A member of the board of county commissioners was appointed a member of the board of bond trustees for bonds issued by the county, but before action was taken in reference to his appointment he retired from the board, sent his resignation to the governor to take effect at once, took no part in the appointment, and never thereafter acted as a member of the board of county commissioners. Subsequent to his ceasing to be a member of such board, a bill was filed to enjoin the county commissioners from proceeding with the bond issue, and no action had been taken by the bond trustees in reference to funds placed to their credit before the hearing on the bill. Held that, in refusing the relief prayed in the bill in reference to the bond issue, it was not error to then refuse to remove the trustee on the ground that he was a member of the board of county commissioners when he was appointed.

COUNSEL

Chillingworth & Currie, for appellant.

Geo. M. Robbins and A. E. Heyser, for appellees.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The county commissioners of Dade county proposed and undertook to carry out the scheme of bonding the county for $150,000 to build roads and erect a courthouse and jail. Appellant, a resident taxpayer of Dade county, filed a bill in chancery against the county commissioners, the trustees of county bonds, appointed by the commissioners, and two banks, alleged purchasers of the bonds, the appellees here, and sought to arrest by injunction the further execution of the scheme, and also to have declared void and canceled the bonds executed or issued by the commissioners, on various grounds alleged in the bill. The defendants jointly and severally answered the bill, and, upon a hearing on bill and answer, the court dismissed the bill, and complainant appealed.

As grounds insisted on in this court for relief, the bill alleges that at a meeting of the board of commissioners held on the 4th day of September, 1900, a resolution was introduced proposing that the question of bonding the county for the purpose of raising funds to build a courthouse and jail and roads should be submitted to the voters of Dade county; but, so far as appears by the official minutes of the board, said resolution was never seconded passed, or voted on, nor was there any resoluion at any other time passed by the board proposing to submit said question to the voters of the county. It is stated that the resolution as it appears on the minutes of the board, was published as required by section 592, Rev. St. It is further alleged that at the following October meeting of the board the minutes of the previous meeting were approved, and that the board, at said October meeting, acting as though said resolution had been passed, appointed polling places, inspectors, and clerks for an election to be held on the 6th day of November following, on the question of issuing said bonds. The resolution is...