State Ex Rel. Crim v. Juvenal

• Decision Date: 25 February 1935
• Citation: 118 Fla. 487,159 So. 663
• Parties: STATE ex rel. CRIM v. JUVENAL et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

159 So. 663

118 Fla. 487

STATE ex rel. CRIM v. JUVENAL et al.

Florida Supreme Court

February 25, 1935

En Banc.

Original proceeding by the State of Florida, on the relation of Charles H. Crim, for a writ of mandamus to J. H. Juvenal, as Chairman of, and others, as members of and composing and constituting, the Board of County Commissioners of Broward County. On demurrer to the alternative writ.

Demurrer sustained, and final judgment entered thereon in favor of respondents.

COUNSEL C. H. Crim, of Fort Lauderdale, for relator.

Rogers & Morris and E. B. Griffis, all of Fort Lauderdale, for respondents.

OPINION

DAVIS Justice.

In this mandamus proceeding relator has predicated his right to maintain the writ upon an allegation that as a resident citizen, and taxpayer of Broward county, Fla., he is entitled to test the constitutionality of chapter 15739, Acts 1931 (Ex. Sess.), and chapter 15972, Acts 1933, which acts regulate the compensation to be paid to the clerk of the circuit court, sheriff, tax collector, tax assessor, county judge, county superintendent of public instruction, and members of the board of county commissioners of counties having a population of not less than 19,000 and not more than 22,000, according to the last federal census.

The command of the writ is addressed to the respondents, who constitute the board of county commissioners of Broward county, Fla., which county is alleged to be the only county in the state falling within the population limits of not less than 19,000 and not more than 22,000. Its effect is to require the respondents, as county commissioners as aforesaid, to refrain from disbursing any salaries to county officers under chapter 15739, Acts 1931 (Ex. Sess.), or chapter 15972, Acts 1933, and to recognize and abide by chapter 11954, Acts 1927, which is asserted to be the only applicable valid act that can or does govern the subject of compensation to the county officers of Broward county.

Even if chapter 15739, Acts 1931 (Ex. Sess.), and chapter 15972, Acts 1933, attacked by the writ as unconstitutional, are each violative of section 20 of article 3 of the State Constitution, as claimed by relator, it is indispensable to relator's right to maintain such an attack by a proceeding in mandamus, that he exhibit some special or particular right in himself other than such as attaches to him in his status as a resident citizen and taxpayer of the county wherein he alleges that the county officials are being paid less compensation than the applicable law, chapter 11954, Acts 1927, would allow them to receive.

To maintain the right to the extraordinary writ of mandamus the relator must show not only a duty on the part of the respondent, but also that the relator has a clear legal right to the performance of that duty. Davis v. Crawford, 95 Fla. 438, 116 So. 41.

The courts have no power per se to inquire into the validity of public laws by proceedings brought directly for that purpose by one whose rights are not shown to be affected by the operation of such laws. State ex rel. Johnson v City of Sarasota, 92 Fla. 563, 109 So. 473; State ex rel. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. State Board of Equalizers, 84 Fla. 592, 94 So. 681, 30 A. L. R. 362; State v. Philips, 70 Fla. 340, 70 So. 367, Ann. Cas 1918A, 138; Scalley v. Meminger, 64 Fla. 464, 60 So 180; 12 Corpus Juris, 783. The courts have no substantive power to nullify duly authenticated legislative enactments. Douglas v. Webber, 99 Fla. 755, 128 So. 613.

Courts have the power to declare laws unconstitutional only as a matter of imperative and unavoidable...