Richardson v. Baldwin

• Decision Date: 05 May 1936
• Citation: 168 So. 255,124 Fla. 233
• Parties: RICHARDSON et al. v. BALDWIN et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

168 So. 255

124 Fla. 233

RICHARDSON et al. v. BALDWIN et al.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

May 5, 1936

Suit by George H. Baldwin and others against Garland Richardson and others. From an adverse decree, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

DAVIS J., dissenting. Appeal from Circuit Court Monroe County; Jefferson B. Browne, H. F. Atkinson, and Paul D. Barns, Judges.

COUNSEL

Ernest P. Roberts and Ernest E. Roberts, both of Miami, for appellants.

Cary D Landis, Atty. Gen., and William H. Malone, of Key West, for appellees.

OPINION

TERRELL Justice.

By chapter 12291, Acts 1927, section 3830 et seq., Compiled General Laws, the Legislature created the state plant board and defined its powers and duties. As to its duties it is required to make investigations and prevent the introduction of, control, and spread of insect pests and plant diseases. Pursuant to the power vested in it, the state plant board made an investigation in 1934 and found an insect pest known as the spiney-citrus white fly or black fly on citrus trees in the city of Key West. It thereupon took steps to eradicate said pest, and declared a quarantine in the city of Key West and contiguous territory more particularly described in the bill of complaint.

After making its investigation and finding said insect pest to exist, the board adopted rules and regulations for its extermination, that is to say, rules 6-B, 6-C, and 6-D, and declared a quarantine to control its further dissemination. It then through its agents and employees took steps to enforce said rules and quarantine. Thereupon the appellants who were defendants below, refused to permit the agents, officers, and employees of the state plant board to enter their premises and take such steps as were necessary to eradicate said pests.

The state plant board then filed its bill of complaint praying that defendants or any persons connected with or representing them be restrained and enjoined from interfering with, preventing, or otherwise obstructing or refusing to permit the state plant board, its agents or employees, from entering any premises, owned, occupied, or in the control of them, for the purpose of spraying or otherwise treating any bushes, shrubbery, or plants located on the premises owned or occupied by them within the said quarantine area for the purpose of eradicating plant pests and for the prevention of the dissemination thereof in accordance with the rules of the state plant board and in accordance with instructions of the state plant board to its plant commissioner, and for such other relief as to the court may seem right and just. A motion to dismiss and an answer were filed, and on final hearing the relief prayed for was granted. This appeal is from both the final decree and the order denying the motion to dismiss.

It is first contended that the Legislature exceeded its authority in enacting chapter 12291, Acts 1927, creating the state plant board and defining its powers and duties.

It is settled law that the Legislature cannot delegate the power to make a law or to declare what the law is or to exercise an unlimited discretion in applying the law. It may enact a law complete in itself to accomplish a public purpose and may authorize designated officers within defined limitations to prescribe rules and regulations for its enforcement. Such laws are upheld on the theory that the power to make rules is not exclusively legislative but essentially administrative and necessary to the complete administration of the law. Bailey v. Van Pelt, 78 Fla. 337, 82 So. 789; State Plant Board v. Roberts, 71 Fla. 663, 72 So. 175; Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U.S. 470, 24 S.Ct. 349, 48 L.Ed. 525; United States v. Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506, 31 S.Ct. 480, 55 L.Ed. 563.

Chapter 12291, Acts 1927, section 3830 et seq., Compiled General Laws, authorizes the state plant board to employ agents and to inspect plants, plant products, or other substances that may in their opinion be capable of carrying insect pests or diseases, and for that purpose they are authorized to enter the premises of any one and inspect any bundle, package, or container thought to contain plants or plant products or other objects thought to contain or be carrying insect pests or diseases.

The state plant board is also authorized to investigate methods of control, eradication, and prevention of the dissemination of insect pests and diseases, and for this purpose may employ agents and lease or purchase such land as they need for that purpose. It may also supervise or cause the treatment, cutting, and destruction of plants when necessary to prevent or control the dissemination of insect pests and diseases or to eradicate them. In the execution of these powers, and these only, the board is authorized to prescribe and enforce all necessary rules and regulations.

All persons owning or having plants, plant products, or other materials in their possession likely to carry insect pests and diseases are required by the act to permit them to be inspected and to furnish full information as to the origin and source of said pests or diseases. After the state plant board has made the investigation, if it finds a dangerous insect pest or disease to exist, it may so announce, and it may declare a quarantine against any area, place, nursery, grove, orchard, county, or counties within the state, or against other states or foreign countries, and prohibit the movement within this state or any part thereof of all plants, plant products, or other objects from such quarantine places which are likely to carry dangerous insect pests or diseases. Such quarantine may be made absolute or it may be limited in such manner by rule and regulation as the board may deem advisable.

The state is authorized to enact laws to foster and protect the horticultural, agricultural, and other industries, and to confer authority on administrative officers to make rules and regulations to enforce them. Bailey v. Van Pelt, supra; United States v. Grimaud, supra; Whitaker v. Parsons, 80 Fla. 352, 86 So. 247; Cazort v. State, 130 Ark. 453, 198 S.W. 103; Rowland v. Morris, 152 Ga. 842, 111 S.E. 389; Bishop v. State, 122 Tenn. 729, 127 S.W. 698; Mulkey v. State, 83 Tex.Cr.R. 1, 201 S.W. 991.

The act complained of is well within this rule, the rule-making power of the state plant board is limited to the making of rules and regulations necessary to the enforcement of the act, and there is no...