Richardson v. Hardee

• Decision Date: 11 June 1923
• Citation: 96 So. 290,85 Fla. 510
• Parties: RICHARDSON v. HARDEE, Governor, et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

96 So. 290

85 Fla. 510

RICHARDSON v. HARDEE, Governor, et al.

Florida Supreme Court

June 11, 1923

Suit by Allen R. Richardson against Cary A. Hardee, Governor, and others. From order sustaining a demurrer to the bill plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Courts without authority to pronounce statute invalid, unless in positive conflict with identified provision of Constitution. The state Constitution is a limitation upon power, and the courts have no authority to pronounce invalid a duly enacted statute on the ground that it violates organic law, unless it appears beyond all reasonable doubt that under any rational view that may be taken it is in positive conflict with some identified or designated provision of the Constitution.

Constitution contains no express provision on formation of taxing districts nor for special assessment for local improvements. The Constitution contains no express provision upon the subject of the formation of taxing districts for particular purposes, nor for special assessments for local improvements by such districts.

Power of state to lay assessment for public work as respects due process of law stated. 'A state may, in its discretion lay assessments for public work in proportion either to position, frontage, area, market value or estimated benefits and, unless the exaction is a flagrant abuse of power, it does not amount to deprivation of property without due process of law.' Houck v. Little River District, 239 U.S. 254, 36 S.Ct. 58, 60 L.Ed. 266.

Statute imposing tax not invalid, because laid on ad valorem basis. A statute imposing a tax upon property, real and personal within a drainage district, for the purpose of raising funds to be used for maintenance, repairs, upkeep, and other necessary purposes of the enterprise, will not be held invalid, when challenged upon the ground that the assessment is laid upon an ad valorem basis.

Tax not invalid because imposed on personal as well as real property within district. Since it cannot be said that personal property located within a drainage district is not enhanced in value by the improvement, a drainage tax will not be held invalid when challenged upon the ground that the tax is imposed upon personal as well as real property within the district.

Amount of assessment fixed by legislative enactment on property which may be benefited conclusive, in absence of manifest abuse of power. Where a state, by legislative enactment, has fixed the amount of assessment upon property which may be benefited by drainage, its determination is conclusive of the amount, in the absence of a showing of arbitrary and manifest abuse of power.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; E. C. Davis, judge.

COUNSEL

Marvin C. McIntosh, of Tallahassee, for appellant.

Glenn Terrell, of Tallahassee, for appellees.

OPINION

WEST J.

This is a taxpayer's suit challenging the validity of chapter 8412, Acts of 1921, Laws of Florida, the material portions of which are, for convenient reference, inserted here:

'Section 1. That there is hereby levied and assessed on all real, personal and mixed property in the Everglades drainage district of Florida, including the lands held by the trustees of the internal improvement fund for the state of Florida, annually, beginning with and including the year 1921 a tax of one mill on each one dollar of valuation, and the said tax to be known as a maintenance tax and shall be used for maintenance, repairs, upkeep, and any other general or necessary purpose of the district.

'Sec. 2. The basis for valuation for the assessment as herein provided shall be the same as the valuation of the said property for state and county taxes, and the lands held by the trustees of the internal improvement fund for the state are hereby assessed at an amount equal to other lands in the same vicinity, which amount the trustees of the internal improvement fund are required to ascertain and certify the same to the board of commissioners of Everglades drainage district, who, in turn, shall certify the same to the tax assessors of the counties in which said drainage district may lie respectively. Such lists shall be certified to the tax assessors at the same time and in the same manner, as near as may be, that land lists are now certified under the provisions of section 1167 of the Revised General Statutes of Florida.

'Sec. 3. It shall be the duty of the tax assessors of each of the several counties embraced in whole or in part within said district to receive such certified valuations of state lands which they shall enter upon the tax roll of their respective counties, and which valuation shall be the basis of the benefit assessment as provided for in this act. In all other respects the law governing the assessment, collection and sale of lands for the nonpayment of Everglades drainage district taxes shall be and is hereby made applicable to the benefit tax as herein provided for.'

The complainant, according to the allegations of the bill, owns property, both real and personal, within the Everglades drainage district, which is subject to the assessment and liable for the tax imposed by the statute. The bill was demurred to, the demurrer upon a hearing was sustained, to which ruling there was an exception, and by appeal the order is here for review.

The validity of this statute is assailed upon various grounds, but practically every question presented has been considered and decided by this court in other suits contesting the validity of the original and amendatory acts creating the Everglades drainage district. Chapter 6456, Acts of 1913 (Comp. Laws 1914, § 635s et seq.); chapter 6957, Acts of 1915; chapter 7862, Acts of 1919; chapter 8413, Acts of 1921 (sections 1160 et seq., Rev. Gen. Stat.); and the 'Model Drainage Act,' chapter 5377, Acts of 1913, Laws of Florida; Berry v. Hardee, 83 Fla. 531, 91 So. 685; Everglades Sugar & Land Co. v. Bryan, 81 Fla. 75, 87 So. 68; Bannerman v. Catts, 80 Fla. 170, 85 So. 336; Bryan v. Dade Muck Land Co., 75 Fla. 330, 78 So. 349; Lainhart v. Catts, 73 Fla. 735, 75 So. 47.

The question involved and presented in this suit, not heretofore decided, is whether it is within the power of the state to imposed taxes, in the nature of special assessments, for local improvements, according to the value of the property affected or upon an ad valorem basis.

The state Constitution is a limitation upon power, and the courts have no authority to pronounce invalid a duly enacted statute on the ground that it violates organic law, unless it appears beyond all reasonable doubt that under any rational view that may be taken it is in positive conflict with some identified or designated provision of the Constitution. Lainhart v. Catts, supra; City of Jacksonville v. Bowden, 67 Fla. 181, 64 So. 769, L. R. A. 1916D, 913, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 99; State ex rel. v. Bryan, 50 Fla. 293, 39 So. 929. The Constitution contains no express provision upon the subject of the formation of taxing districts for particular purposes nor for special assessments for local improvements by such districts. Anderson v. Ocala, 83 Fla. 344, 91 So. 182; Stewart v. Deland-Lake Helen, etc., Dist., 71 Fla. 158, 71 So. 42. In Houck v. Little River District, 239 U.S. 254, 36 S.Ct. 58. 60 L.Ed. 266, the court considered the validity of a state statute imposing a tax levied generally upon lands within a drainage district, for the purpose of paying preliminary expenses of such district. Speaking through Mr. Justice Hughes, the court said:

'In view of the nature of this enterprise it is obvious that, so far as the federal Constitution is...